Trump’s ‘America first’ vow

The United States witnessed a historic moment on January 20, 2025, as Donald John Trump took the oath of highest office for his second term, promising to lead in a “golden age” for the nation. In his inaugural address, delivered before a distinguished audience, including former presidents, Supreme Court justices, and global dignitaries, Trump vowed to prioritise an ‘America first’ approach.

Trump greeted his guests with acknowledgments of their services and contributions before claiming that the nation would no longer be taken advantage of and would reclaim its sovereignty and strength. Trump’s speech emphasized his commitment to restoring American prosperity, safety, and pride, laying the foundation for a series of executive orders intended to realign the country’s policies with his vision.

Among the most significant actions by President Trump were orders targeting immigration. He declared a national emergency at the US-Mexico border, reinstated the ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy, and moved to end birthright citizenship. These measures aim to curb illegal immigration, enhance border security, and reduce the strain on public resources.

The legality of ending birthright citizenship guaranteed under the 14th Amendment faces significant legal challenges, including Section 1 of the Amendment, which states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”.

The designation of cartels like MS-13 and Tren de Aragua as foreign terrorist organizations and the deployment of military personnel to the border highlight a hardline approach to national security. The critics argue that these measures could strain US-Mexico relations and create humanitarian crises.

President Trump’s energy strategy included declaring a national energy emergency, rolling back regulations from the Green New Deal, and opening federal lands to increased drilling and mining. He also announced withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, an international accord for limiting global temperature increases to below 2°C—pre-industrial levels.

President Trump reaffirmed his commitment to prioritizing domestic energy production over international climate commitmentsto boost the economy, lower energy costs, and strengthen the American position as a global energy leader.

However, environmental advocates warn that such actions could exacerbate climate change, harm ecosystems, and undermine global efforts to combat environmental crises. Laurence Tubiana, a key architect of the Paris Agreement, stated that United States’ disengagement risks forfeiting economic opportunities in the burgeoning global clean energy market, projected to reach US$2 trillion by 2035.

Trump established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), tasked with cutting government spending and streamlining federal operations. The measures included a federal hiring freeze, the reimplementation of ‘Schedule F’ to remove job protection for certain civil servants, and mandates to end remote work policies. These actions, meant for enhancing accountability and reducing bureaucracy, may face backlash over concerns of eroding job security and undermining institutional expertise.

Another executive order restored tariffs under the External Revenue Service to collect duties and protect domestic industries, aligning with Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which authorizes the President to adjust imports that threaten national security. Additionally, the administration’s focus on industrial and manufacturing bases aimed to safeguard critical supply chains, citing Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to address unfair trade practices by foreign nations.

President Trump’s social policies included terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programmes across federal agencies and mandating recognition of only two genders in government documentation. An order under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 removed protections for transgender individuals, restricting access to gender-transition healthcare and altering guidelines for federal prisons.

While proponents argue these measures promote meritocracy and reduce divisiveness, opponents view them as a rollback of progress on civil rights and inclusivity. The international community expressed concerns about these shifts, particularly their impact on human rights dialogues and collaboration on global social policies.

The decision to exit the Paris Climate Agreement drew widespread criticism from international allies and environmental organizations.

The withdrawal, set to take effect in 2026, signals a departure from global climate leadership and has been condemned as undermining collective climate goals. It is being viewed by the experts that disengagement of the United States from the agreement may hinder innovation in clean energy technologies and weaken global partnerships.

The environmental groups cite evidence from the Global Carbon Project showing the United States as the second-largest carbon polluter globally, responsible for 4.9 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2023.

Trump’s administration emphasized that prioritizing domestic energy production aligns with the ‘America First’ strategy, fostering energy independence and economic growth. Yet, critics warn that the absence of American leadership in the climate arena could embolden other nations to deprioritize environmental commitments, complicating efforts to achieve targets outlined in Section 115 of the Clean Air Act.

President Trump’s renewed withdrawal from the World Health Organisation (WHO) reignites debates about American contributions to global health initiatives. While the administration criticizes the WHO for inefficiencies, critics argue that withdrawing undermines global health security and reduces American influence in shaping international health policies.

This decision follows similar actions during his first term and is seen as part of a broader effort to renegotiate country’s commitments under multilateral frameworks. Similarly, section 702 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which emphasizes the importance of international collaboration in addressing global health crises, as evidence of the potential long-term consequences of this withdrawal.

Trump’s executive orders focused on revisiting trade agreements and imposing tariffs to protect American industries. These policies included the establishment of the External Revenue Service to collect tariffs and duties, aiming to strengthen domestic manufacturing and address trade imbalances. Actions under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and the Trade Act of 1974 sought to ensure fair trade practices and secure critical supply chains.

However, such measures may provoke retaliatory actions from trading partners, potentially escalating trade tensions. For instance, revisions to Section 301of the Trade Act of 1974, targeting persistent trade deficits and unfair currency practices by China, a move welcomed by domestic manufacturers but criticized by global trade advocates as protectionist.

The ‘America first’ strategy continues to draw mixed reactions globally. Allies express concerns about the United States’ retreating from multilateral agreements, which they view as essential for addressing shared challenges like climate change, health crises,

and trade stability. On the contrary, some nations see an opportunity to assert greater leadership in areas where the United States withdraws.

The reimplementation of stringent immigration policies and withdrawal from international agreements may strain diplomatic relations.

Moreover, countries like Mexico and Canada face immediate impacts from border and trade policies, while European allies voice frustration over the disengagement of the United States from climate and health initiatives.

Trump’s efforts to secure energy dominance have also elicited reactions from Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which view increased American drilling and exports as a threat to global oil markets.

Beneficial executive orders include policies promoting domestic drilling and energy production, which could reduce reliance on foreign oil, enhance economic stability, and create jobs.

Additionally, measures addressing illegal immigration and criminal activity aim to safeguard American citizens and reduce public expenditures.

Streamlining federal operations and reducing bureaucracy could improve accountability and resource allocation. However, controversial orders like environmental rollbacks, repealing the Green New Deal, and exciting the Paris Agreement risk exacerbating global warming and damaging international credibility.

Similarly, terminating DEI programmes and limiting gender recognition may marginalize vulnerable communities and provoke domestic unrest. Disengaging from the WHO undermines global health initiatives and reduces the United States’ influence in combating pandemics and other health crises.

Trump’s executive orders accentuate a brave vision for reshaping American policy, reflecting his commitment to the ‘America first’ agenda. While these actions prioritize domestic interests, they also pose challenges for international cooperation and global progress on critical issues. The success of these steps hinges on their implementation, legal challenges, and public reception.

As the world watches, the United States faces a decisive moment in balancing national priorities with its role as a global leader. Whether these policies usher in a “golden age” or deepen divisions remains a question for history to answer.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025