IR Experts Give Trump’s Second Term Very Low Marks

A survey of 726 international relations experts overwhelmingly disapproves of President Trump's foreign policy during his second term's first 100 days, with 95% rating his performance as "poorly" or "very poorly." The experts believe Trump's policies have diminished U.S. global respect and security, citing concerns over his handling of climate change, trade, and relationships with allies, and anticipate a less peaceful and stable world as a result. Specifically, nearly 93% disapprove of Trump's handling of the Russia-Ukraine war, fearing it could embolden China's aggression toward Taiwan, though a major US war remains unlikely in the next decade.

Analysis

A survey of 726 international relations (IR) scholars, conducted by the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) Project between April 29 and May 8, reveals a starkly negative assessment of former President Trump’s foreign policy performance during the first 100 days of a hypothetical second term. An overwhelming 95% of respondents rated his performance as "poorly" or "very poorly," a significant divergence from the 5% negative rating for President Biden's first 100 days. This expert sentiment, consistent with a provided sentiment score of -0.8 (strongly negative) and a pessimistic tone, indicates a belief that Trump's foreign policy choices have made the United States less secure, less respected globally (96% believe so), and less capable of achieving its international objectives, leading to expectations of a less peaceful and stable world. Specific policy areas garnering over 90% disapproval include the handling of climate change, immigration, foreign aid, international trade, global human rights, and national security. Experts primarily objected to the goals pursued with foreign policy tools like tariffs and aid cuts, rather than the tools themselves, viewing their use for boosting national competitiveness less ethically acceptable than for objectives like restoring democracy. Withdrawals from the World Health Organization and the Paris climate agreement are anticipated by large majorities to worsen global health outcomes and greenhouse gas emissions, respectively, and, alongside tariffs and aid cuts, to diminish perceptions of U.S. leadership and harm national security. Trump's approach to the Russia-Ukraine war faced 93% disapproval, with 64% of experts believing it would increase the likelihood of Chinese military action against Taiwan. While a direct U.S.-China war in the next decade is estimated at a mean probability of 29% (up from 24% in 2022) and a U.S.-Russia war at 20% (down from 32% in 2022), the primary long-term concern highlighted is the erosion of U.S. credibility and its relationships with key allies, including Canada and NATO members.

Key Decisions for Investors

• Investors should anticipate increased geopolitical risk and potential market volatility stemming from the foreign policy directions outlined, which experts perceive as broadly destabilizing and detrimental to U.S. global standing.
• A thorough review of portfolio exposure to sectors significantly impacted by international trade policies, tariffs, foreign aid disbursements, and climate agreements is advisable, given the overwhelmingly negative expert assessment of policy shifts in these domains.
• Consider implementing strategies to mitigate risks associated with potential escalations in conflicts such as the Russia-Ukraine war and heightened tensions concerning Taiwan, which could include geographic diversification or targeted hedging.
• Closely monitor developments regarding U.S. international alliances and commitments, as the perceived erosion of U.S. reputation and reliability could have long-term implications for U.S. economic influence and the relative attractiveness of U.S.-domiciled assets.