Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States of America, has turned out to be one of the most polarizing figures in modern political history. His foreign policy, in particular, has been criticized as erratic, aggressive, and dangerously unilateral. From launching trade wars to walking out of international agreements, Trump’s ‘America First’ doctrine fundamentally restructured the U.S. approach to world affairs.
In spite of his combative rhetoric and diplomatic actions, Trump notably avoided traditional military conflicts and even attempted to de-escalate rising tensions, including an unexpected intervention in the recent India-Pakistan conflict following the Pahalgam attack. This paradox, however, deserves closer examination amid the flurry of criticisms.
Whitewashing Trump’s larger foreign policy legacy is not the goal of this article. Rather, it draws attention to a crucial, little-discussed trait: Trump’s unwillingness to involve the U.S. in new conflicts, despite his significant influence on the global order.
Economic nationalism, preference for bilateralism over multilateralism, and contempt for conventional diplomacy were the main tenets of Trump’s foreign policy philosophy. He withdrew from historic international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA), imposed high tariffs on China, and started trade disputes with allies. Trump also criticised organisations like the World Health Organisation (WHO) and questioned mutual defence pledges, endangering North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) unity.
These actions painted a picture of a leader who was eager for conflict. However, in contrast to a number of his predecessors, Trump did not initiate any new wars. In fact, he emphasised returning American troops home and frequently voiced his disinterest in lengthy military conflicts. Thus, this strategy questions the widely held belief that an assertive foreign policy invariably results in war.
Trump’s handling of the rising tensions between India and Pakistan after the Pahalgam terrorist attack is a clear illustration of his strategy. India and Pakistan, two neighbours with nuclear weapons, were on the brink of war after the incident. Given Trump’s tough stance on terrorism and the strengthening U.S.-Indian relationship, international observers anticipated strong U.S. support for India’s military response.
Surprisingly, Trump played a more measured role. Rather than inflaming the situation, his administration engaged diplomatically with both New Delhi and Islamabad. Reports indicated that the U.S. had quietly but effectively urged restraint and encouraged backdoor talks between the two nations. Ultimately, a full-scale war was averted.
This response stood in contrast to Trump’s usual hyperbole. While the media spotlight remained on his tweets and trade tariffs, behind the scenes his administration was performing a classic de-escalation play—something reminiscent of traditional diplomacy. It was a subtle, unexpected pivot in a presidency marked by brashness and unpredictability.
Trump’s approach to the India-Pakistan crisis was not an isolated event. He consistently showed a dislike for military escalation during his presidencies. In the case of North Korea, Trump pursued diplomacy in the end, even holding historic summits with Kim Jong-un, despite engaging in a risky verbal sparring match.
A full-scale conflict with Iran was feared by many following the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani. Trump, however, favoured sanctions and rhetorical deterrence over more extensive military action.
Trump’s administration began negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan, setting the stage for the eventual U.S. withdrawal, which his successor carried out. Additionally, Trump mostly avoided more extensive military engagement in Syria while launching limited missile strikes in response to the use of chemical weapons.
These incidents all reveal a leader who was remarkably reluctant to increase America’s military presence overseas, even though his tone and tactics were confrontational. It could be argued that Trump’s hesitation to go to war stemmed more from a political calculation related to his domestic base than from pacifism or humanitarian concerns. He was sceptical of ‘endless wars’ that had depleted American resources and morale as part of his ‘America First’ philosophy. Trump was able to appeal to war-weary voters while saving political capital for internal and economic conflicts by avoiding military involvement.
Moreover, his preference for economic leverage—like sanctions and tariffs—offered him tools of coercion without triggering armed conflict. According to this perspective, Trump’s foreign policy was opportunistically restrained rather than dovish: aggressive in appearance but restrained in content. For years to come, Donald Trump’s foreign policy will be examined and debated. It was distinguished by an unreservedly nationalist mindset, an embrace of unpredictability, and a break from conventional U.S. diplomacy. Nonetheless, there was a constant refrain from going to war within this combative, frequently disruptive framework.
Along with other international hotspots, the post-Pahalgam mediation between India and Pakistan revealed an unexpected propensity for de-escalation and peace—at least militarily. This is not to say that Trump’s foreign policy was peaceful or conducive to world peace because most of his choices increased tensions and undermined international alliances. But to overlook the nuances of his anti-war stance is to overlook a crucial aspect of the Trump administration. Recognising contradictions is crucial to comprehending world leaders and their policies.
In many respects, Trump exemplified one: an aggressive foreign policy strategist who, in spite of his bombast, has thus far avoided involving the U.S. in new conflicts.
