The Unconventional Diplomacy of Donald Trump: A Critical Analysis of its Ideological Underpinnings, Global Impact, and Domestic Echoes

Donald J Trump President of of United States of America

I. Executive Summary

President Donald J. Trump's diplomatic approach represents a profound departure from established U.S. foreign policy norms. Characterized as a "chaotic, spectacular, and unpredictable 'peace show'," this style eschews traditional diplomatic playbooks, instead adopting a profoundly transactional posture that mirrors his business background. This methodology prioritizes leveraging financial gains and securing perceived "wins," often through "mediation with muscles," which involves the strategic deployment of threats and economic coercion. The approach is deeply rooted in an "America First" doctrine, reinterpreted as the "Donroe Doctrine," which elevates domestic interests above multilateral commitments and fundamentally challenges the post-1945 rules-based liberal international order.

This report demonstrates that Trump's unconventional diplomacy has led to significant U.S. isolation on the global stage, strained long-standing alliances, and eroded international trust in American leadership. Furthermore, it has been widely criticized for systematically undermining human rights protections, challenging the rule of law, and fostering a global climate of fear and division. A central argument herein is that these international behaviors are not isolated phenomena but are deeply intertwined with and reflective of domestic socio-racial dynamics within the United States, particularly the alleged "elevation of white supremacy" and underlying imperialist tendencies. The high-profile cases of Bill Cosby and Kanye West serve as illustrative examples, revealing how the intersecting realities of race, class, and power manifest within the American context, thereby mirroring the hierarchical and often demeaning posture observed in Trump's foreign policy.

II. Introduction: Redefining Diplomatic Engagement

Traditional U.S. foreign policy has historically navigated a complex terrain, oscillating between an idealism that casts America as an exceptional "city upon a hill" destined to propagate democracy and liberty globally, and a realism that prioritizes national interest, power balance, and strategic engagement. Despite these differing philosophical underpinnings, both approaches have generally operated within established diplomatic frameworks, emphasizing alliance-building, multilateral institutions, and a rules-based international order. This long-standing tradition sought to foster mutual respect and constructive dialogue as cornerstones of international relations.

Donald Trump's approach, however, represents a radical and unprecedented departure from these norms. It explicitly disavows the traditional diplomatic playbook, manifesting instead as a "chaotic, spectacular, and unpredictable 'peace show'". This style is characterized as an "imperialist and expansionist" stance, particularly evident in its approach to the Americas, combined with an "isolationist" orientation towards Europe, thereby fundamentally challenging the post-1945 global order that the U.S. itself largely helped construct. This report aims to conduct a rigorous analysis of Trump's distinctive diplomatic strategy, moving beyond superficial observations to explore its profound ideological underpinnings. It will critically examine the contentious link to an alleged "elevation of white supremacy" and the "America First" doctrine, dissecting how these concepts manifest in international interactions. The analysis will cover the tangible repercussions on U.S. global standing, the integrity of its alliances, and the state of human rights worldwide. Crucially, the report will draw explicit connections between these international actions and ongoing domestic struggles with race, class, and power in America, utilizing high-profile examples to illuminate these complex and often overlooked interdependencies.

III. The Characteristics of Trump's Diplomatic Style

Donald Trump's foreign policy is marked by several distinct characteristics that collectively represent a significant break from conventional diplomatic engagement. These traits, deeply rooted in his business background, have reshaped how the United States interacts with the global community.

Transactionalism and "Mediation with Muscles"

Trump's diplomatic methodology is a direct reflection of his real estate and business acumen, prioritizing "leverage and financial gains" above traditional geopolitical considerations. This "transactional manner" is fundamentally driven by economic considerations, with the overarching objective of ensuring the U.S. "come[s] out of the transaction on top". This approach often involves a singular focus on immediate, tangible benefits for the United States, frequently framed in terms of economic advantage.

A key tactic employed within this framework is what has been termed "mediation with muscles," which involves the strategic use of "threats, economic leverage, and military posturing" to compel parties to negotiate on his terms. A notable instance of this was the suspension of military aid and intelligence sharing to Ukraine, aimed at pressuring it to accept a ceasefire. Such actions demonstrate a willingness to use coercive measures to achieve specific, often rapid, outcomes. His foreign policy decisions are consistently guided by perceived economic advantage, as evidenced by his prioritization of Saudi Arabia for investment and his transactional approach to Ukraine while simultaneously easing tensions with Russia. Trump views negotiations as purely commercial transactions where "ideological and historical barriers are secondary," suggesting a pragmatic, rather than principled, approach to international relations.

This impatience for quick results often leads him to seek "rapid resolutions that can be presented as successes at home," frequently overlooking complex underlying issues or making "preemptive concessions with little in return". The Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab countries without addressing the core Israel-Palestine conflict, exemplify this preference for swift economic investments for U.S. corporations over long-term, comprehensive diplomatic processes.

The reliance on "mediation with muscles" and the pursuit of rapid, often coerced, agreements inherently introduces a significant element of fragility into international relations. While such strong-arm tactics might bring parties to the negotiating table, the resulting agreements tend to be brittle and susceptible to collapse. This suggests that while Trump's methods may yield immediate, visible "successes" for domestic consumption, these agreements often lack the genuine buy-in and commitment from all parties. The singular focus on rapid, often economic, gains means that deeper, more complex geopolitical or humanitarian issues are either deliberately ignored or superficially addressed, leaving foundational problems unresolved. This short-sightedness inevitably leads to a heightened risk of renewed conflicts or persistent instability in the long run. For instance, pressuring Ukraine into concessions for the sake of a swift U.S. disengagement, potentially to gain access to mineral riches, regardless of the long-term consequences for Ukrainian or European security, reveals a critical trade-off: perceived short-term domestic political victories come at the cost of enduring global stability and peace.

Furthermore, Trump's diplomatic approach is consistently described as "chaotic, spectacular, and unpredictable". He prioritizes personal relationships and isolated events, seeking rapid resolutions. This behavior directly leads to a situation where "foreign countries and global firms have begun to no longer see the United States as reliable". It also creates significant "uncertainty" that is "bad for businesses". The absence of a consistent, principled, or values-driven foreign policy framework renders the U.S. an unpredictable and unreliable partner. Allies cannot depend on stated commitments or long-term strategic alignments, forcing them to re-evaluate their own foreign policy positions and seek alternative partnerships. This unpredictability undermines the very "foundational pillars of U.S. economic strength: stability" and provides strong incentives for allies to "rethink the extent of their security dependence on Washington". This shift in perception and strategy can accelerate a diffusion of global power, as other nations, such as China in trade or South Korea in defense exports, capitalize on new opportunities , potentially leading to a more fragmented, less U.S.-centric international order.

Public Spectacle and Confrontation

A defining characteristic of Trump's diplomacy is its nature as a "public spectacle". He frequently utilized the Oval Office, traditionally a revered space for foreign dignitaries, to "publicly interrogate and often demean" visiting foreign leaders. This approach transformed diplomatic meetings into highly publicized, often confrontational, events.

Prominent examples include the "orchestrated" confrontations with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. During the meeting with Ramaphosa, Trump confronted him with "false claims of genocide against white South Africans" and presented "unverified claims of violence against white farmers," even playing a video of crosses he falsely asserted were burial sites. This interaction was widely condemned as a "shameful spectacle". Despite the provocation, Ramaphosa reportedly "avoided entering into a shouting match" with Trump, in contrast to the experience of other leaders. The meeting with Zelenskyy similarly "went off the rails," with Trump accusing the Ukrainian leader of "being disrespectful and gambling with a potential World War Three". Trump had previously labeled Zelenskyy a "dictator" and sarcastically remarked during their meeting that Zelenskyy was "all dressed up today". Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly denounced Trump's "very dumb" trade war and tariffs, drawing a sharp contrast with Trump's perceived appeasement of Russia. In response, Trump threatened Canada's sovereignty and warned of reciprocal tariffs.

The deliberate use of public humiliation, while potentially serving Trump's domestic political agenda, actively discourages genuine, confidential, and constructive diplomatic engagement. Experts warn that this approach "risks alienating foreign leaders, potentially benefiting China" and could "prompt foreign leaders to think twice about accepting his invitations and risk public humiliation". Leaders may opt to avoid direct interactions or relegate them to less public channels, thereby reducing opportunities for meaningful dialogue and alliance-building. This vacuum in traditional diplomacy can be strategically exploited by rival powers, particularly China, to expand their influence and forge stronger ties with nations alienated by Trump's confrontational approach. Ultimately, this undermines U.S. soft power and global leadership, making it significantly harder to cement international partnerships and address shared global challenges effectively. The "shameful spectacle" thus transforms into a tangible strategic liability.

Furthermore, Trump's confrontation with South African President Ramaphosa regarding "white genocide" claims was explicitly "tailored for parts of his political base, particularly the far-right and white nationalist segments". He employed this international platform to showcase "unverified claims of violence against white farmers and framing land reform as racial persecution," effectively "tap[ping] talking points popular in U.S. right-wing extremist circles". This demonstrates a deliberate strategy wherein international platforms and interactions are utilized not primarily for diplomatic advancement, but as instruments for domestic political messaging and mobilization. Foreign leaders, in this context, become unwitting or unwilling participants in a domestic political drama, their presence leveraged to resonate with specific segments of the U.S. electorate. This blurring of the lines between foreign policy and domestic politics risks undermining the credibility of U.S. diplomacy on the global stage, as its actions are perceived as driven by internal political expediency rather than consistent international principles. Moreover, it lends legitimacy to extremist narratives domestically, suggesting a dangerous symbiotic relationship where foreign policy actions are both shaped by and, in turn, reinforce specific ideological segments of the U.S. electorate.

Selective Engagement and Praise

In stark contrast to his treatment of other foreign leaders, Trump exhibited a "markedly different attitude towards Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu" [User Query]. Netanyahu, in turn, lauded Trump as the "greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House". Netanyahu commended Trump's policies, including withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, brokering the Abraham Accords, and relocating the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. This relationship was characterized by mutual affirmation and shared policy objectives, particularly concerning Iran and regional stability.

Trump also extended praise to Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, describing her as "a fantastic person and leader." Meloni has been perceived as a "Trump whisperer," capable of bridging the gap between the U.S. president and other European leaders. This suggests a pattern of aligning with certain right-wing populist figures globally.

This pattern suggests that Trump's diplomatic favor is not primarily based on traditional alliance structures, adherence to democratic values, or commitment to multilateral cooperation. Instead, it appears to be driven by perceived ideological alignment, personal chemistry, or shared "anti-establishment" stances. Leaders who affirm his approach or share his populist or right-wing leanings receive preferential treatment, regardless of their broader human rights records or democratic credentials. This selective engagement undermines the coherence and principled nature of U.S. foreign policy, making it appear less predictable and more arbitrary. It risks alienating traditional allies who do not conform to this ideological mold, further contributing to U.S. isolation and potentially fostering a global network of like-minded populist leaders at the expense of broader international consensus and stability.

"America First" and the "Donroe Doctrine"

The "America First" doctrine is fundamentally predicated on prioritizing the "safety, prosperity, and overall well-be

ing of the American people first". It explicitly diverges from approaches that prioritize "multinational processes" and aims to bolster "US economic self-sufficiency". This policy has been characterized as a "hardline" reinterpretation of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, dubbed the "Donroe Doctrine," which "prioritizes domestic interests over multilateral commitments" and actively challenges the post-1945 rules-based liberal international order.

The doctrine advocates for a "focused and judicious use of military power" primarily for deterrence, explicitly avoiding "nation-building exercises abroad". Trump's implementation of this doctrine includes "aggressive trade policies and confrontational stance toward America's allies," notably through the imposition of tariffs. He has expressed disinterest in "maintaining or strengthening traditional alliances," instead emphasizing "U.S. dominance on its own terms". This includes "stark criticism of NATO" and a "forceful stance toward China".

The pursuit of unilateral dominance, rather than solidifying U.S. power, paradoxically weakens it by alienating partners who are crucial for collective security, economic prosperity, and global influence. The "America First" strategy, intended to strengthen the U.S., instead dismantles the very coalitions that provide deterrence and stability. This self-imposed isolation severely hinders the U.S.'s ability to effectively address complex global challenges , creates strategic opportunities for rival powers , and may accelerate a shift towards a more multipolar world where U.S. leverage is significantly diminished, directly contradicting the stated goal of "dominance." The "tearing down" of the existing international order, without a viable alternative, leaves the U.S. with fewer reliable partners in an increasingly chaotic global environment.

Furthermore, Trump's "America First" policy heavily relies on the "aggressive use of tariffs and protectionist measures," frequently targeting even long-standing allies. These tariffs lead to increased consumer costs, undermine American manufacturers, and create market instability. They also provoke "retaliatory tariffs" from key partners like Canada and Mexico. While ostensibly aimed at benefiting domestic industries and gaining economic leverage , these policies often backfire economically, causing harm to American consumers and businesses. Moreover, they are widely perceived as "bullying" tactics and contribute to a profound "lack of trust" among international partners. The resulting economic friction incentivizes allies to diversify their supply chains away from the U.S., exemplified by the "China+1" strategy , and even to "rethink the extent of their security dependence on Washington". This could lead to a long-term decline in U.S. economic and security influence, as partners actively seek alternative trade and defense relationships, ultimately undermining the "America First" objective of strengthening the U.S. by eroding its global economic and strategic foundations.

The table below summarizes the core tenets and manifestations of Trump's diplomatic approach:

Characteristic	Description	Key Examples	Perceived Outcome/Impact
Transactionalism	Emphasis on leverage and financial gains; "what's-in-it-for-me" approach.	Prioritizing Saudi Arabia for investment, Ukraine aid suspension, Abraham Accords.	Fragile agreements, short-term focus, economic advantage over values.
Mediation with Muscles	Use of threats, economic leverage, military posturing to compel negotiation.	Ukraine military aid suspension to force ceasefire.	Coerced agreements, risk of short-lived peace, potential for future instability.
Public Spectacle/Confrontation	Use of public settings (Oval Office) for interrogation, demeaning, and "ambush."	Public questioning of Zelenskyy, confrontation with Ramaphosa over "white genocide" claims, trade war rhetoric with Trudeau.	Alienation of foreign leaders, public humiliation, risks diplomatic ties, tailored for domestic political base.
Selective Engagement/Praise	Favoring leaders based on perceived ideological alignment or personal chemistry.	Praise for Benjamin Netanyahu, Giorgia Meloni.	Undermines principled foreign policy, alienates traditional allies, fosters network of like-minded populists.
"America First" / "Donroe Doctrine"	Prioritizing domestic interests, unilateralism, protectionism, skepticism of multilateralism.	Imposition of tariffs, criticism of NATO, withdrawal from international agreements.	Increased U.S. isolation, strained alliances, diminished global trust, economic instability for U.S. businesses and consumers.

IV. Ideological Underpinnings: White Supremacy and Imperialist Tendencies

The controversial nature of Trump's diplomatic style extends beyond mere transactionalism or unpredictability, suggesting deeper ideological currents related to racial hierarchy and imperialist ambition.

Critiques of Racial Hierarchy in Diplomacy

The user query explicitly posits a link between Trump's diplomatic behavior and the "elevation of white supremacy" and the "America First" doctrine. Direct evidence supporting this connection includes Trump's highly publicized confrontation with South African President Ramaphosa, where he advanced "false claims of genocide against white South Africans" and articulated rhetoric specifically "tailored for parts of his political base, particularly the far-right and white nationalist segments". He further reinforced this by presenting a video and print-outs of unverified claims to Ramaphosa, demonstrating a deliberate intent to push a racially charged narrative onto an international stage. This diplomatic act, despite its diplomatic impropriety and reliance on false claims, effectively served to "tap talking points popular in U.S. right-wing extremist circles".

Beyond specific diplomatic encounters, the Trump administration has been described as actively seeking to "reinscribe the hierarchies of race and gender," explicitly privileging "white and male" individuals. This agenda is further evidenced by the appointment of officials who have openly embraced "conspiracy theories, bigotry and racism," such as Darren Beattie, who promoted the "great replacement theory," and Pete Hegseth, known for his anti-Islam views. Critics argue that this administration's policies are "not just racist, but also segregationist," indicating an active embrace of ideas that would have been widely considered disqualifying for public office in previous eras.

This pattern indicates that Trump's foreign policy is not solely driven by traditional geopolitical objectives but functions as a deliberate instrument for domestic political mobilization, specifically appealing to and reinforcing a white nationalist base. It suggests a calculated use of international interactions to legitimize and amplify a racial hierarchy within the United States. This blurs the traditional boundaries between domestic and international politics, rendering U.S. foreign policy susceptible to being co-opted by internal ideological battles. It risks profoundly undermining the U.S.'s moral authority on human rights and racial justice globally, as its actions are perceived as hypocritical or overtly racially motivated. Furthermore, this approach emboldens similar nationalist or white supremacist movements abroad, potentially fostering a transnational network of mutually reinforcing ideologies that destabilize international relations.

Imperialist and Unilateralist Frameworks

Trump's foreign policy has been explicitly characterized as "imperialist and expansionist in its approach to the Americas," with some analysts describing him as an "old-school imperialist" who seeks to "expand American territory" and "extract wealth from other parts of the world". Examples of this rhetoric include threatening military action in Mexico, advocating to "reclaim" the Panama Canal, and agitating for the annexation of Canada and Greenland.

This approach is defined by "aggressive unilateralism" and a pronounced rejection of multilateralism. It is seen as actively "tearing down" the modern global order, driven by a deep-seated "dissatisfaction with the current global system" which Trump perceives as unfairly disadvantaging the U.S.. The "Donroe Doctrine" emphasizes U.S. dominance on its own terms, focusing on economic and geopolitical advantages, and promoting a more interventionist stance towards Latin America. Historically, U.S. foreign policy has, at times, explicitly used race as a tool to "cement the walls of Jim Crow segregation and construct new barriers to the entry of 'undesirable' and 'inferior' foreigners". This historical precedent suggests a continuity in the application of racialized foreign policy, providing crucial context for understanding contemporary manifestations.

The explicit labeling of Trump's foreign policy as "imperialist and expansionist," accompanied by rhetoric regarding territorial ambitions and wealth extraction, constitutes a direct and profound challenge to the post-1945 rules-based liberal international order. This aggressive posture, characterized by the "tearing down" of the modern global order and the abandonment of multilateralism, signifies a regression to a pre-World War II era of overt power politics, territorial ambition, and unilateral action. This undermines decades of painstaking international cooperation and institution-building that were specifically designed to prevent such conflicts and foster global stability. It represents a fundamental shift from the U.S.'s perceived role as a "leader of the free world" to that of a purely transactional, self-interested actor. This historical regression risks significant destabilization in various regions, particularly the Americas, by reintroducing aggressive, unilateral interventions. Furthermore, it incentivizes other powerful nations to adopt similar imperialist tendencies, leading to a more volatile and less predictable global environment where "hard power versus soft" becomes the dominant mode of interaction, thereby increasing the overall likelihood of international conflict.

There is a deep, symbiotic relationship where domestic racial ideologies, such as white supremacy and the "great replacement theory," are not merely reflected in, but actively drive and legitimize external imperialist and unilateralist foreign policies. The perceived need to assert dominance abroad can be interpreted as an extension of a domestic agenda to maintain or re-establish internal racial and gender hierarchies. The highly publicized confrontation with South African President Ramaphosa over "white genocide" claims serves as a potent example of this direct link between domestic racial anxieties and international diplomatic actions. This ideological coherence between domestic racism and foreign policy renders the U.S. a less credible and effective advocate for human rights and democracy on the global stage. It risks exacerbating racial tensions both at home and abroad, as U.S. foreign policy actions are increasingly interpreted through a racial lens, potentially fueling anti-American sentiment among marginalized communities worldwide and undermining efforts towards global equity and justice.

V. Global Repercussions: Weakened Alliances and Eroding Human Rights

The unconventional and often confrontational nature of Donald Trump's diplomatic approach has generated significant global repercussions, leading to a weakening of long-standing alliances and a discernible erosion of international human rights norms.

Impact on U.S. Global Standing and Alliances

Trump's foreign policy approach has "rapidly reshaped this global order, dismantling the foundations of U.S. leadership". Consequently, the U.S. has become "more isolated on the world stage". Empirical data corroborates this, indicating a "sharp drop in Australian trust toward the U.S." and a significant decline in favorable attitudes toward the United States across numerous European countries following Trump's return to office.

Trump has actively "undermined U.S. commitment to NATO, creating ruptures with transatlantic allies". His threats to withdraw from NATO and refusal to commit to Article 5 guarantees are seen as actions that "actively invite Kremlin miscalculation and increase the risk of nuclear confrontation". This has prompted key allies like Germany, Poland, and South Korea to reconsider their security arrangements and even explore independent nuclear options, reflecting a growing distrust in U.S. security guarantees.

His trade wars have resulted in "retaliatory tariffs" from close partners such as Canada and Mexico , fostering "nationalist pride" and increased opposition to Trump within these countries. In response to U.S. protectionism, the European Union has actively pursued new free-trade agreements with other global partners, signaling a strategic diversification away from reliance on the U.S.. Allies are increasingly questioning "foundational assumptions about their security arrangements" and are reconsidering purchases of U.S. weapons systems. This could lead to a strategic "decoupling" from security reliance on Washington, with increased security collaboration among mid-sized partners designed to circumvent or minimize U.S. dependencies.

The "America First" approach, while aiming for U.S. dominance, paradoxically results in increased U.S. isolation and weakened alliances. Allies are now "reconsidering purchases of the US-built F35 aircraft" and actively exploring "increased security collaboration between mid-sized US partners that circumvents or minimizes US dependencies". Defense budgets are expanding in countries like Japan, further indicating a shift towards greater self-reliance. This attempt to assert unilateral dominance, rather than solidifying U.S. power, inadvertently accelerates a shift towards a more multipolar global order, where traditional U.S. leadership is significantly diminished. Allies, no longer able to fully trust the U.S. as a reliable and predictable partner, are compelled to enhance their own defense capabilities and forge new, independent alliances, leading to a broader diffusion of global power. This phenomenon creates substantial "opportunities for other rising defence exporters such as South Korea" and renders nations like France and Germany "increasingly attractive defence partners". The long-term consequence is a potentially less stable global security environment, as the U.S. loses strategic leverage and the collective deterrence provided by strong, unified alliances is fragmented. This outcome directly undermines the very "security" that "America First" purports to prioritize for the United States.

Erosion of Human Rights and International Norms

The Trump administration has been accused of launching a "sweeping attack on human rights" and systematically "eroding human rights protections, fostering a climate of fear and division, and undermining the rule of law". This has been characterized as a "human rights emergency". Specific actions include "ending asylum and targeting immigrants" through policies like mass deportations and family separations, "attacking freedom of expression and the right to protest" (particularly for supporters of Palestinian rights), and "undermining press freedom".

The administration's retreat from key multilateral bodies, such as the Human Rights Council, the World Health Organization, and the Paris Climate Agreement, signifies an "abandonment of the U.S. stated commitments to human rights, public health, and global peace and security". This withdrawal is seen as actively "gutt[ing] international human rights protections and endanger[ing] billions across the planet". "Massive foreign aid cuts" have exacerbated humanitarian crises globally, leading to consequences such as the closure of hospitals in refugee camps and the cessation of lifesaving programs in Yemen. The administration is also accused of "bolstering the global backlash against gender justice" and "relentlessly attacking transgender rights".

The Trump administration's "anti-rights campaign is turbocharging harmful trends already present" and "exacerbating the significant damage those principles and institutions have already sustained". This behavior "further embolden[s] other anti-rights leaders and movements" globally, accelerating "humanity’s plunge into a brutal new era characterized by intermingling authoritarian practices and corporate greed". This includes encouraging social media companies to roll back protections, such as Meta's removal of third-party fact-checking, and enabling the spread of hateful and violent content. The U.S., traditionally a proponent of universal human rights, has, under this administration, become a catalyst for their erosion, both domestically and internationally. This shift undermines the very foundation of the rules-based international order and creates a dangerous precedent for other nations to disregard human rights and international law with impunity.

Domestic Echoes: Race, Class, and Power in America

The international behaviors observed in Trump's diplomacy are not isolated but are deeply intertwined with and reflective of domestic socio-racial dynamics within the United States. The struggles of notable figures such as Bill Cosby and Kanye West illuminate the intersecting realities of race, class, and power in America, mirroring the hierarchical and often demeaning posture seen in foreign policy.

Bill Cosby: Public Moralist to Convicted Felon

Bill Cosby, once revered as "America's fantasy father" through his role on "The Cosby Show," which consciously sought to "recode blackness" by presenting an affluent, tightly-knit African American family, later became a figure of intense public scrutiny. His "Pound Cake speech" in 2004 marked a significant shift in his public persona. In this widely disseminated address, Cosby criticized aspects of the black community, including language use, family structures, and consumption habits, arguing that African Americans should no longer blame discrimination or governmental institutions for issues like unemployment or educational gaps, but rather their own "culture of poverty". This perspective aligned with a conservative viewpoint on individual responsibility, effectively shifting the narrative of racial inequality from systemic issues to internal community failings. Sociologist Michael Eric Dyson criticized Cosby for chastising poor Black individuals rather than defending them, arguing that Cosby ignored "white society's responsibility in creating the problems he wants the poor to fix on their own".

Cosby's subsequent legal challenges, particularly the numerous sexual assault allegations and his eventual conviction, introduced a complex intersection of race, class, and power. As a wealthy and powerful Black man, his case became a focal point in the #MeToo era, highlighting how privilege can be used to silence victims. The racial dynamics in his trial were undeniable; a Black man accused by dozens of mostly white women in a predominantly white county, with the prosecutor making the case a central plank of his campaign. The conviction, later overturned on a technicality, still revealed a deep split in public perception, with nearly half of Black Americans supporting the overturning and a significantly higher percentage believing in his innocence compared to Americans overall. This division underscored how racial identity can influence perceptions of justice and guilt, even in cases involving serious allegations. The sentiment, "If he was white, he would be president," expressed by some, points to a perceived racial double standard in accountability for powerful men, suggesting that race can be a factor in how justice is applied and perceived, even for those at the top of the social hierarchy.

Kanye West: From Cultural Icon to Controversial Figure

Kanye West's trajectory offers another compelling illustration of the complex interplay of race, class, and power. Initially recognized for his critiques of racial injustice, such as his famous declaration "George Bush doesn't care about Black people!" in response to Hurricane Katrina , West later evolved into a figure embracing anti-Semitic and white supremacist rhetoric. His public appearances, including wearing a KKK-like outfit and a swastika necklace, and making inflammatory remarks like "I am a Nazi" and "I love Hitler," sparked widespread outrage and concern. He also infamously tweeted "death con 3 ON JEWISH PEOPLE".

These actions demonstrate how celebrity, immense wealth (class), and cultural influence (power) can be leveraged to disseminate harmful ideologies, blurring the lines between "artistic freedom" and hate speech. West's controversies have fueled discussions around race, identity, and artistic freedom, but they have also risked alienating his fanbase and inflaming societal tensions. His attempts to blame a "Jewish doctor" for his bipolar disorder or "the Matrix" for his legal challenges highlight a tendency to externalize responsibility and scapegoat specific groups, often through the lens of conspiracy theories. This cynical use of public platforms, where "transgression" becomes "bait for digital censorship" to play the martyr, underscores a calculated manipulation of media attention.

The broader discussion of "Black antisemitism" and the "pathologies of whiteness" provides a critical lens on how racial dynamics within marginalized communities can be exploited or how individuals can adopt harmful narratives, often linked to conspiracy theories that scapegoat specific groups. West's descent into anti-Semitism, despite his earlier critiques of systemic racism, illustrates how power and privilege can enable individuals to operate outside conventional norms, with significant societal implications for race relations and the spread of extremist views. His case underscores the vulnerability of public discourse to the influence of powerful figures who can normalize bigotry under the guise of artistic expression or personal struggle.

VI. Conclusion

Donald Trump's diplomatic approach represents a fundamental and unprecedented challenge to the liberal international order that has largely governed global relations since World War II. His style, characterized by transactionalism, public confrontation, and selective engagement, is deeply rooted in an "America First" doctrine that prioritizes unilateral national interest over multilateral cooperation and traditional alliances. This has led to a paradoxical outcome: while ostensibly aiming for U.S. dominance, his methods have instead fostered diplomatic isolation, eroded international trust, and prompted allies to reconsider their security and economic dependencies on Washington. The deliberate use of public humiliation and the instrumentalization of foreign policy for domestic political messaging have further undermined the credibility and effectiveness of U.S. diplomacy on the global stage.

Crucially, the analysis reveals that these international behaviors are not isolated anomalies but are deeply intertwined with underlying ideological currents within the United States, particularly critiques related to racial hierarchy and imperialist tendencies. The confrontational approach towards leaders from the Global South, juxtaposed with praise for those aligned with a particular ideological viewpoint, suggests a foreign policy that is, at times, explicitly shaped by and designed to reinforce domestic racial and gender hierarchies. This connection is further illuminated by the administration's appointments of individuals with documented bigoted beliefs and its broader efforts to dismantle human rights protections both at home and abroad. The "Trump effect" has thus become a catalyst for global authoritarianism, emboldening anti-rights movements and accelerating a retreat from universal human rights principles.

The domestic experiences of figures like Bill Cosby and Kanye West serve as potent illustrations of how the complex interplay of race, class, and power manifests within American society, mirroring the hierarchical dynamics observed in Trump's foreign policy. Cosby's shift from a beloved cultural icon to a figure embroiled in sexual assault allegations, and the racialized public perception of his trials, demonstrates how wealth and influence can complicate justice, and how racial identity can shape narratives of accountability. Kanye West's trajectory from a critic of racial injustice to a purveyor of anti-Semitic and white supremacist rhetoric highlights how celebrity and power can be leveraged to disseminate harmful ideologies, blurring the lines between artistic expression and hate speech. These cases underscore the deep-seated issues of racial inequality and the manipulation of power that resonate both internally and externally, influencing public discourse and policy.

In light of these findings, there is a critical need for a comprehensive reevaluation of how the U.S. engages with the global community. A foreign policy grounded in transactionalism and unilateralism, particularly when intertwined with racialized and imperialist undertones, risks not only diminishing America's global standing but also exacerbating international tensions and undermining the very principles of equity, respect, and human rights that underpin a stable and just world order. The interconnectedness of domestic socio-racial challenges and international diplomatic posture necessitates a coherent and principled approach that genuinely prioritizes universal values and fosters mutual respect, rather than asserting dominance and creating hierarchies at the expense of others.

Works cited

1. Making Peace Great Again? The Challenges and Potentials of Trump's Approach to Peace Diplomacy - IPI Global Observatory, https://theglobalobservatory.org/2025/03/making-peace-great-again-the-challenges-and-potentials-of-trumps-approach-to-peace-diplomacy/ 2. Trump's transactional approach to diplomacy is a driving force on the world stage, https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/global-trends/trumps-transactional-approach-to-diplomacy-is-a-driving-force-on-the-world-stage/articleshow/118819500.cms 3. US Foreign Policy at a Crossroads: Trump's 'Donroe' Doctrine - E-International Relations, https://www.e-ir.info/2025/03/05/us-foreign-policy-at-a-crossroads-trumps-donroe-doctrine/ 4. Foreign policy of the second Donald Trump administration - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_second_Donald_Trump_administration 5. 'Tearing down': What drives Trump's foreign policy? | Donald Trump News - Al Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/29/tearing-down-what-drives-trumps-foreign-policy 6. 100 Days of the Trump Administration's Foreign Policy: Global ..., https://www.americanprogress.org/article/100-days-of-the-trump-administrations-foreign-policy-global-chaos-american-weakness-and-human-suffering/ 7. One Hundred Days of Trump's Foreign Policy: US Reputation and the World Order Take a Hit, https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/one-hundred-days-of-trumps-foreign-policy-us-reputation-and-the-world-order-take-a-hit/ 8. President Trump's tariffs increase pressure on allies to reduce security dependence on the US | Chatham House, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/04/president-trumps-tariffs-increase-pressure-allies-reduce-security-dependence-us 9. President Trump's First 100 Days: Attacks on Human Rights, Cruelty and Chaos, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/04/president-trumps-first-100-days-attacks-on-human-rights/ 10. Human rights crisis as 'Trump effect' accelerates destructive trends, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/04/global-human-rights-crisis-trump-effect-accelerates-destructive-trends/ 11. Second Oval Office ambush by Trump could make foreign leaders think twice, https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/global-trends/second-oval-office-ambush-by-trump-could-make-foreign-leaders-think-twice/articleshow/121327511.cms 12. Trump-Ramaphosa meeting: US president confronts South African leader - BBC, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce9vvljen0xo 13. Fact-checking Donald Trump's Oval Office confrontation with Cyril Ramaphosa - BBC, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce9vxve994ro 14. Bigoted beliefs, racist ties found among some of President Trump's ..., https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/bigoted-beliefs-racist-ties-found-among-president-trumps-appointees/ 15. Trump´s Brand of Foreign Policy, https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/10/03/2025/trumps-brand-foreign-policy 16. 2025 Trump–Zelenskyy Oval Office meeting - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Trump%E2%80%93Zelenskyy_Oval_Office_meeting 17. Trudeau slams Trump for starting 'very dumb' trade war with Canada while appeasing Russia's Putin - PBS, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/trudeau-slams-trump-for-starting-very-dumb-trade-war-with-canada-while-appeasing-russias-putin 18. Netanyahu calls Trump “greatest friend Israel has ever had in White House” - DD News, https://ddnews.gov.in/en/netanyahu-calls-trump-greatest-friend-israel-has-ever-had-in-white-house/ 19. Netanyahu calls Trump 'greatest friend Israel has ever had,' hailing his actions in past 2 weeks, https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-calls-trump-greatest-friend-israel-has-ever-had-hailing-his-actions-in-past-2-weeks/ 20. Trump was once seen as an asset to right-wing populists abroad. No more - NPR, https://www.npr.org/2025/04/23/nx-s1-5366685/trump-populism-right-wing-world-canada-australia 21. Establish an America First Foreign Policy, https://agenda.americafirstpolicy.com/strengthen-leadership/establish-an-america-first-foreign-policy 22. Trump's “America First” Policy: What It Means for Southeast Asia? - Source of Asia, https://www.sourceofasia.com/trumps-america-first-policy-what-it-means-for-southeast-asia/ 23. The Age of Discrimination: Race and American Foreign Policy after World War I - MDPI, https://www.mdpi.com/2313-5778/6/1/16 24. Bill Cosby and American Popular Culture – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog, https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2017/06/bill-cosby-and-american-popular-culture/ 25. Pound Cake speech - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_Cake_speech 26. From Martin Luther King to Bill Cosby: Race and Class in the Twenty-First Century, https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1246&context=vlr 27. Race not only factor in Cosby case, but it was factor that couldn't be ignored - WHYY, https://whyy.org/articles/race-not-only-factor-in-cosby-case-but-it-was-factor-that-couldnt-be-ignored/ 28. Americans tend to oppose Bill Cosby's sexual assault conviction being overturned | YouGov, https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/36910-bill-cosby-conviction-overturned-poll 29. Bill Cosby sexual assault cases - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_cases 30. Kanye West's Use of the Diatribe: An Offensive “Scumbag” or A Modern-Day Cynic? - eScholarship@BC, https://dlib.bc.edu/islandora/object/bc-ir:102154/datastream/PDF/view 31. Kanye West's Controversial Interview Sparks Outrage and Concern ..., https://www.vinylmeplease.com/blogs/music-industry-news/kanye-wests-controversial-interview-sparks-outrage-and-concern-for-his-children 32. Is Kanye West on an attention-fishing expedition? Nudity to racism, the rapper is checking every box for controversy spree - The Economic Times, https://m.economictimes.com/magazines/panache/is-kanye-west-on-an-attention-fishing-expedition-the-rapper-is-checking-every-box-for-controversy-spree/articleshow/118029752.cms 33. Reading Baldwin After Kanye - Jewish Currents, https://jewishcurrents.org/reading-baldwin-after-kanye 34. Kanye West and the Anti-Semitic Influencer Problem - City Journal, https://www.city-journal.org/article/anti-semitic-influencers-conspiracy-theories-kanye-west-candace-owens-andrew-tate