The advent of Donald Trump’s second presidency has brought a considerable level of disruption to US foreign policy in a very short space of time. Some of it is actual policy that is being implemented right now, such as the negotiations with Russia or the 20 per cent tariffs on Chinese goods and the global steel and aluminium tariffs at 25 per cent. But most of the shake-up consists, so far, of just noise and panic in reaction to US presidential rhetoric rather than actual, definitive policy decisions about anything. 

The global game of “reading the runes” and “interpreting White House signs” is now in high season and played in earnest across chancelleries, ministries of foreign affairs, policy shops and of course the global press. All of this is understandable. After all, it is prudent to not just take note of the intent projected by the US administration, but to take public statements from Trump and his close team seriously and consider them at face value. 

But from this to drawing big and final conclusions about what will actually happen in US foreign policy, is a rather long way. Unfortunately, many people – especially those with a pre-existing bias against Trump and MAGA, and/or with a longstanding resentment of overweening American power – are very keen to close that “gap” between what Trump says and what Trump does, very quickly.