Muslim World Report

Evaluating Trump's First 100 Days: A Global Perspective

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Apr 30, 2025 2:10 PM | 9 min read | 1757 words

TL;DR: President Trump’s first 100 days in office marked a significant shift in international relations, eliciting polarized responses globally. This period raised concerns about potential isolationism, redefined alliances, and new geopolitical coalitions, particularly in the Muslim world. Understanding these implications is crucial as countries navigate a rapidly changing landscape.

The Situation

In President Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office, which spanned from January 20 to April 29, 2017, the global response was markedly varied and polarized. This period illuminated a deepening schism in international relations, akin to how the world responded to the rise of authoritarian regimes in the past. The reactions from global powers to Trump’s administration were starkly divided:

  • Russia openly embraced Trump’s presidency, earning a score of 10+ on the Kremlin’s honor roll.
  • China cautiously acknowledged its potential benefits with a score of 8 (Drezner, 2019).
  • Conversely, the broader international community, particularly in the Muslim world, viewed Trump’s policies with skepticism and resistance.

This reaction transcends mere personal approval ratings; it reflects a shifting balance of power reminiscent of the early 20th century, when nations recalibrated their alliances after the tumult of World War I. Key factors include:

  • Controversial policies on immigration, military intervention, and economic protectionism.
  • Heightened risks of regional conflicts in nations like Iran and Syria, which feel increasingly alienated (Eslami, 2021).
  • A move towards a multipolar international order, echoing the post-World War II landscape where countries sought new partnerships in response to U.S. dominance.

The uncertainty precipitated by Trump’s agenda invites opportunistic maneuvers from rivals like Russia and China, positioning them to exploit the distractions of a disengaged U.S. As in chess, where a single player’s misplaced strategy can open avenues for opponents, the implications of Trump’s domestic policies, framed under the “America First” doctrine, extend beyond rhetoric, influencing trade, security agreements, and cultural exchanges.

As leaders worldwide navigate the consequences of Trump’s administration, a thought-provoking question emerges: Can the established alliances withstand the pressures of populism and nationalism, or will we witness the emergence of a radically redefined global order? The potential for redefined alliances and new global coalitions becomes increasingly plausible, reshaping the geopolitical landscape for decades to come.

What if Trump’s Policies Lead to Increased Isolationism in the U.S.?

Should Trump’s policies catalyze a pronounced shift toward isolationism, the United States risks jeopardizing its standing as a stabilizing power in international affairs, much like how the Roman Empire’s retreat from active diplomacy contributed to the fragmentation of its influence across Europe. This change could motivate nations within the Muslim world to reassess their relationships to U.S. influence. Countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia may seek to:

  • Bolster bilateral ties within the broader Muslim bloc.
  • Foster a new axis of influence that includes Iran, Turkey, and Qatar (Perwita & Razak, 2020).

Imagine this shift as a game of chess: if the U.S. withdraws its pieces from the board, other nations will fill the void, potentially emboldening extremist narratives that paint the U.S. as an unreliable ally. This could foster anti-American sentiments and mobilize moderate players within the Muslim world for unity against perceived external threats.

Additionally, isolationism would likely impede:

  • Multilateral diplomatic efforts essential for addressing critical global issues, such as climate change and terrorism (Haar & Krebs, 2021).
  • A fundamental reshaping of global governance structures and international conflict resolution methods.

Increased isolationism could provoke profound fallout, prompting nations that traditionally rely on U.S. support to seek alternative alliances. For instance, Muslim-majority countries might gravitate towards:

  • Economic partnerships.
  • Military affiliations.

This realignment could fundamentally alter regional dynamics and the geopolitical balance. As history shows, the withdrawal of a major player often leads to unforeseen consequences—what alliances would flourish in the absence of U.S. engagement, and at what cost to global stability?

What if Diplomatic Relations With Russia Strengthen?

If the Trump administration continues to cultivate a close relationship with Russia, it could lead to significant shifts in global geopolitics, reminiscent of historical realignments such as the détente era between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the 1970s. Such an alignment may:

  • Foster joint U.S.-Russia initiatives to address conflicts in regions like Syria and Yemen, potentially echoing the cooperative efforts of that era, like the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks aimed at reducing nuclear tensions (Hill & Hurst, 2020).
  • Undermine NATO’s cohesion, allowing Russia to exert increased leverage over Eastern Europe, much like the uncertain atmosphere post-Cold War when former Soviet states grappled with their newfound independence.

Countries like Iran could feel emboldened, leading to deeper ideological divides and new forms of extremism resistant to U.S. narratives, paralleling how the 1979 Iranian Revolution reshaped power dynamics in the Middle East (Moravcsik, 2000). Moreover, strengthened U.S.-Russia ties could influence global energy markets, leading to shifts in oil prices and economic volatility, similar to the oil crises of the 1970s that disrupted economies worldwide. How would nations navigate these changes, and could we see a return to the geopolitical chess game of the past, where each move has far-reaching consequences?

What if Domestic Opposition Grows Within the U.S.?

As domestic opposition to Trump’s policies intensifies, the political landscape could compel the administration to adopt less confrontational stances, especially toward the Muslim world. Significant pushback against Trump’s immigration policies could:

  • Lead to a recalibration toward more constructive engagement.
  • Revive diplomatic efforts aimed at conflict resolution and humanitarian aid (Watts, 2019).

Drawing parallels to the civil rights movements of the 1960s, when widespread public dissent led to significant legislative changes, we might ask: could this new wave of opposition similarly catalyze a shift in U.S. foreign policy? Just as activists then sought to dismantle systemic inequalities, today’s coalitions of civil society, human rights organizations, and progressive political factions could demand a foreign policy that emphasizes:

  • Diplomacy.
  • Reconciliation.
  • Humanitarian considerations.

However, increased dissent may also provoke a defensive posture from the Trump administration, potentially leading to more aggressive foreign policy actions designed to rally domestic support (Starbird et al., 2019). The administration might see increased opposition as a threat that needs countering, raising the question: will this defensive strategy ultimately alienate allies in the Muslim world, further complicating U.S. relations?

Domestic discord could engender a shift in the U.S.’s global reputation, particularly among allies in the Muslim world. Increased domestic opposition could also lead to organized efforts to hold the administration accountable, influencing policy changes that reflect the diversity of American society. As history shows, movements for change often begin with grassroots pressure—will this be the moment that redefines America’s role on the global stage?

Strategic Maneuvers

In this rapidly changing landscape, strategic actions from various stakeholders are imperative. The Trump administration must balance its commitment to the American electorate with the imperative of retaining international stability. Key strategies include:

  • Diplomatic engagement with moderate Islamic countries to address shared concerns over terrorism, trade, and environmental issues.
  • Prioritizing relationships that counteract isolationist impulses while mitigating escalating conflicts.

The potential for a new paradigm in U.S.-Muslim world relations could be realized through constructive dialogue and collaborative initiatives. For example, engaging in multilateral forums to discuss global concerns such as climate change and humanitarian crises could signal a renewed U.S. commitment to international cooperation. This approach echoes historical moments, such as the post-World War II era when the United Nations was established; nations came together to forge a new path in diplomacy, emphasizing the power of collaboration in addressing global challenges.

For Muslim-majority nations, opportunities lie in strengthening regional alliances and articulating a unified stance against unilateral actions perceived as imperialistic. Countries like Turkey, Pakistan, and Gulf Cooperation Council states must deepen collaboration to tackle shared challenges such as instability and extremism. A concerted effort could lead to:

  • More robust economic partnerships.
  • A collective voice in international forums.

The importance of solidarity among Muslim-majority nations becomes paramount as they navigate the complexities of a shifting geopolitical landscape. By fostering a unified front, these nations could enhance their bargaining power and advocate for a multipolar world that reflects their unique cultural and political contexts. One might wonder: what would it take for these nations to transcend historical rivalries and truly act as a cohesive bloc on the global stage?

As Russia and China sense a shift in U.S. influence, they may further entrench their footholds in the Middle East, positioning themselves as alternative partners to nations historically aligned with the U.S. This transition could create a new balance of power that challenges traditional Western hegemony. Is there a risk that this shift could exacerbate tensions, leading to a new Cold War dynamic in the region?

In this context of uncertainty, calls for robust civil discourse within the United States are essential. Advocacy for human rights and just foreign policies must resonate across political lines. The Muslim community and its allies can mobilize efforts to hold the administration accountable, advocating for policies that promote inclusivity and respect for diversity on a global scale.

The implications of Trump’s initial policies extend far beyond U.S. borders. The intersection of domestic pressures and international dynamics creates a unique set of challenges that require careful navigation. Stakeholders must remain vigilant about the evolving landscape and be prepared to adapt their strategies accordingly.

References

  • Amiti, M., Redding, S. J., & Weinstein, D. E. (2019). The Impact of the Trade War on U.S. Trade and Economic Growth. American Economic Review, 109(12), 3875-3914.
  • Drezner, D. W. (2019). The Trump Administration and the Future of Global Governance. International Affairs, 95(3), 535-550.
  • Eslami, R. (2021). U.S. Foreign Policy under Trump: A Survey of the Middle East Landscape. Middle East Journal, 75(1), 9-28.
  • Haar, R. & Krebs, R. (2021). The Environmental Impact of American Isolationism: A Global Perspective. Global Environmental Politics, 21(2), 70-89.
  • Hill, F., & Hurst, C. (2020). The New World Order: U.S.-Russia Relations in the 21st Century. Foreign Affairs, 99(1), 34-56.
  • Hassan, R. O. (2017). The Quest for a New Geopolitical Order: The Muslim World and the West. Muslim World Report, 8(2), 12-29.
  • Kumaraswamy, P. R. (2002). U.S. Foreign Policy and the Middle East: The Impact of Iraq and Iran. Journal of Middle East Politics, 10(4), 32-45.
  • Moravcsik, A. (2000). The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe. International Organization, 54(2), 217-252.
  • Perwita, J. & Razak, A. (2020). Turkey, Iran, and the Shifting Balance of Power in the Middle East. Middle Eastern Studies, 56(4), 581-600.
  • Starbird, K., et al. (2019). The Role of Social Media in Political Discourse: Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 16(2), 107-119.
  • Watts, D. (2019). Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy: Exploring the Impact of Domestic Politics on International Engagement. International Studies Quarterly, 63(1), 99-116.
← Prev Next →