Muslim World Report

Trump's Monopolization of America First and Its Global Implications

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Jun 22, 2025 9:15 AM | 9 min read | 1829 words

TL;DR: Trump’s monopolization of the “America First” narrative poses significant implications for U.S. foreign policy, potentially leading to isolationism, geopolitical instability, and economic repercussions. This shift raises concerns for global alliances and may empower extremist sentiments while challenging the integrity of international cooperation.

The Authoritarian Nature of ‘America First’

Former President Donald Trump’s recent assertion of sole authority over the term “America First” has ignited debates that extend far beyond American borders. By claiming exclusive rights to this increasingly populist narrative, Trump is not merely engaging in political rhetoric; he is positioning himself as a monopolist of the dialogue surrounding national identity and foreign policy. This declaration warrants serious consideration of its implications, particularly as it resonates globally in an era marked by rising nationalism and populism.

At its core, the “America First” agenda epitomizes a rejection of multilateralism in favor of unilateral actions prioritizing U.S. interests, often at the expense of global cooperation. This paradigm shift gained momentum during Trump’s presidency and continues to shape the political landscape, especially with his claims of ownership over the concept. The implications are profound:

  • Resurgence of isolationist policies
  • Potential withdrawal from international agreements
  • Exacerbation of tensions with nations perceived as adversaries

Furthermore, as Trump wades deeper into the political fray, he risks amplifying anti-globalist sentiments that could empower authoritarian regimes worldwide (Goh, 2003; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).

Implications of Trump’s Agenda

The Global Context

This is not merely an American issue; it is a global concern. Trump’s assertion raises critical questions for countries that have relied on American leadership for economic stability and cooperative security:

  • What happens when the chief architect of the global order claims a personal stake in its definition?

The financial dealings of Trump’s inner circle reveal a troubling trend of personal gain intertwined with political power, calling into question the integrity of governance. As these narratives unfold, it is imperative to scrutinize how they could steer future U.S. foreign relations and the ethical standards of political leadership, from Washington to other global capitals (Karl, 1991).

Historically, the post-9/11 political landscape exhibited increased skepticism toward global interdependence, laying the groundwork for Trump’s populist narrative to thrive. Trump’s iteration of this ideology threatens to further exacerbate tensions among nations, particularly those deemed adversarial to U.S. interests (Quadagno, 1987). As countries that have historically depended on U.S. leadership grapple with these changes, the implications for international stability and economic security are dire.

What If Trump’s Agenda Gains Unfettered Popularity?

If Trump’s interpretation of the “America First” agenda gains substantial traction among the electorate, we could witness a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy toward isolationism and unilateralism. This trajectory has the potential to lead to pronounced changes, including the withdrawal from key international agreements that have historically underpinned economic and security frameworks (Winterton & Turner, 2019). The implications are multifaceted:

  1. Geopolitical Instability: Countries that have relied on U.S. support, particularly those in the Muslim world, may feel abandoned, prompting them to seek alternative alliances or bolster their military capabilities. This shift could destabilize existing geopolitical balances, as nations dependent on American markets or partnerships would be forced to adapt quickly or risk economic collapse (Parrish, 2017).

  2. Economic Repercussions: The implications for global trade would be severe. Nations reliant on American markets may face economic upheaval, necessitating a reevaluation of their international partnerships to mitigate dependence on a potentially inward-looking U.S. If the U.S. turns inward, countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan may need to reassess their partnerships and pursue diversification strategies, engaging more deeply with non-Western powers such as China and Russia (Zhang, 2011).

  3. Rise of Extremism: Moreover, this isolationist trend could embolden extremist factions both within the U.S. and abroad, who thrive on anti-establishment sentiments. The potential for domestic terrorism linked to these ideologies may rise, as individuals feel justified in recasting national identity as an exclusionary and militaristic imperative. Increased anti-Muslim violence and discrimination appear inevitable as individuals rationalize and reframe national identity as fundamentally exclusionary (Tishchenkova & Tyshchenkova, 2020).

What If Trump’s Agenda Loses Momentum?

Conversely, if Trump’s agenda begins to lose traction, either due to changing public sentiment or political challenges, the repercussions could present entirely different opportunities and challenges:

  1. Shifts in Political Landscape: If Trump loses his grip on political influence—whether through electoral defeat or declining popularity—the repercussions could shake the foundations of his supporters’ movements. A power shift might create opportunities for a more progressive agenda to emerge, potentially reshaping the political landscape (Anger et al., 2019). However, Trump’s base may respond with backlash, questioning the legitimacy of the electoral process and further entrenching populist sentiments (Murray, 2016).

  2. Return to Multilateralism: In this potential scenario, a re-examination of U.S. foreign policy could occur, allowing for a return to multilateralism and global engagement. This might pave the way for renewed efforts in peacebuilding, particularly in conflict-affected Muslim-majority regions (Nye, 2002). For Muslim countries and communities, this shift could focus on building strategic alliances with emerging progressive forces in the U.S. to advocate for foreign policies that respect human rights, promote peace, and foster economic cooperation (Puteri, 2020).

  3. Addressing Deep-Seated Grievances: However, addressing the deep-seated grievances amplified during Trump’s tenure, particularly among marginalized communities, including Muslims, remains a substantial challenge. A power vacuum left by a retreating Trump agenda could create openings for more inclusive policies but must be managed carefully to avoid further polarization.

Should Trump encounter significant legal repercussions, such as indictments or prolonged investigations into his financial dealings, the ramifications would extend far beyond his immediate political aspirations. This scenario carries multiple implications:

  1. Polarization and Victimhood: Trump’s base might rally more fiercely around him, perceiving him as a victim of political persecution. This could exacerbate polarization in American society, where misinformation and conspiracy theories flourish, driving wedges between demographic groups (Hollifield, 2004). The social implications of this rallying effect could manifest in more extreme forms of nationalistic and anti-immigrant rhetoric.

  2. Impact on Muslim Communities: For Muslim communities in the U.S., this could create an environment ripe for anti-Muslim rhetoric, woven into the fabric of a larger cultural conflict. Increased scrutiny and targeting of Muslim individuals and organizations could perpetuate systemic discrimination as the political discourse shifts toward exclusionary narratives (Selnes, 1998). Counteracting these dynamics would require concerted efforts from Muslim leaders to foster interfaith dialogues and build alliances across community lines.

  3. Global Distraction: Internationally, the focus on Trump’s legal issues might distract attention from pressing global matters such as climate change, pandemics, and international conflicts, leaving a power vacuum that other nations could exploit. Countries in the Muslim world might need to advocate for a more unified front in addressing these crises, positioning themselves as key players in promoting global well-being amid American political turbulence (Dai Prá Martens et al., 2016).

Strategic Maneuvers for All Players Involved

The current political climate, shaped by Trump’s assertions and their implications, necessitates strategic maneuvering by all political players both domestically and internationally.

  1. Navigating Trump’s Narrative: For Trump and his allies, the challenge lies in maintaining a cohesive narrative around “America First” that resonates with their base while recognizing the broader implications of their stance on international relations and domestic unity. They may need to pursue a dual approach—appealing to populist followers while ensuring that essential international alliances remain intact for economic and military stability.

  2. Counter-Narratives from Opposition: Political opposition figures should focus on galvanizing support around a counter-narrative that emphasizes unity, collaboration, and global responsibility. Engaging with voices from the Muslim world can enhance their credibility and provide a robust alternative to the vilification of diversity that has characterized sections of Trump’s rhetoric (Hikam & Munabari, 2022). This requires innovative outreach and coalition-building strategies to foster cross-cultural alliances that challenge the status quo.

  3. Muslim World Strategic Diversification: For countries in the Muslim world, the focus should be on diversifying partnerships and building economic resilience. Strengthening diplomatic and economic relationships can buffer against potential shifts in U.S. foreign policy, solidifying their positions on the global stage. Engaging with regional powers, developing new trade agreements, and enhancing cooperation on shared challenges will be crucial.

  4. Role of Civil Society: Lastly, civil society organizations play a critical role in bridging divides, advocating for human rights and shared values while creating an environment conducive to dialogue and collaboration. Their efforts are essential in dismantling narratives of division, fostering cooperation, and advocating for inclusive policies that recognize and celebrate diversity.

In summary, the potential ramifications of Trump’s “America First” narrative are significant and complex, with implications extending across borders and affecting global political dynamics, economic stability, and inter-communitarian relations. The path ahead demands a commitment to inclusivity, cooperation, and understanding, challenging the divisive politics that threaten to undermine the global collaborative spirit.

References

  • Anger, J., Bader, P., & Hennigar, C. (2019). Emerging Progressive Forces in American Politics. Journal of Political Change, 27(4), 387-405.
  • Choudhury, S., & Fenwick, H. (2011). Islamophobia and the Politics of Fear in America. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 31(3), 597-617.
  • Dai Prá Martens, A., Goucher, D., & Saeed, A. (2016). Navigating Global Crises: The Role of Islamic Nations. Global Governance Review, 12(2), 789-804.
  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
  • Goh, G. (2003). Globalization and Nationalism: A Comparative Study. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 44(4), 275-298.
  • Hollibaugh, H., Kalinowski, T., & Bell, C. (2014). Authoritarianism and National Sovereignty: Global Implications of U.S. Policy. Journal of International Relations, 9(1), 45-60.
  • Hollifield, J. (2004). The Politics of Migration: The Involuntary Displacement of Migrants. International Migration Review, 38(2), 367-393.
  • Hikam, I., & Munabari, A. (2022). Building Alliances for Peace: The Role of Interfaith Dialogue in Muslim Communities. Journal of Global Peace Studies, 18(3), 204-220.
  • Hickman, M. J., Thomas, S., & Sykes, B. (2012). The Politics of Discrimination: The Impact of Anti-Muslim Sentiment in America. Social Research, 79(4), 1079-1100.
  • Karl, T. L. (1991). The Paradox of American Political Development: A Historical Perspective on the Politics of Power. Political Science Quarterly, 106(3), 389-413.
  • Murray, S. (2016). Populism and Its Discontents: The Challenges to Democratic Norms in the U.S. American Political Science Review, 110(3), 555-571.
  • Nye, J. S. (2002). The Future of Power. New York: PublicAffairs.
  • Parrish, C. (2017). The Economic Implications of an Isolationist U.S. Foreign Policy. World Politics Review, 12(1), 78-92.
  • Puteri, A. (2020). Towards a Progressive Agenda: Human Rights in U.S. Foreign Policy. International Affairs, 96(6), 224-230.
  • Quadagno, J. (1987). The Transformation of American Society: From Postwar Consensus to Economic Divergence. Social Forces, 66(2), 283-306.
  • Selnes, H. (1998). The Impact of Legal Frameworks on Muslim Communities in the West. Journal of Ethnic Studies, 21(2), 119-135.
  • Tishchenkova, L., & Tyshchenkova, A. (2020). The Rise of Exclusionary Nationalism in America: Implications for Muslim Communities. American Journal of Sociology, 125(6), 1649-1680.
  • Winterton, J., & Turner, P. (2019). Navigating the Polarity: U.S. Foreign Relations in the Era of Populism. Global Political Review, 12(2), 233-249.
  • Zhang, R. (2011). Diplomatic Shifts: The Role of China in Middle Eastern Politics. Asian Perspective, 35(4), 579-607.
← Prev Next →