Trump 2.0’s grand strategy has become much clearer over the past month since the US bombed ISIS in Nigeria on Christmas, executed its astoundingly successful “special military operation” in Venezuela, and is now threatening new strikes against Iran on the pretext of supporting anti-government protesters. What these three states have in common is their important roles in the global energy industry, whether present or potential (due to sanctions-related limitations), and in China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI).
Accordingly, coercing those countries into subordinating themselves to the US (whether by tariffs, force, subversion, etc.) would result in Trump 2.0 obtaining influence over their energy exports and trade ties, which could be weaponized to pressure China. What the US wants from China is for it to agree to a lopsided trade deal that would then be replicated with the EU and the US’ other partners for, as the new National Security Strategy states, “rebalanc[ing] China’s economy towards household consumption”.
The implied goal is to coerce China into correcting its overproduction, which is responsible for its unprecedented global exports that displaced the West’s leading role in world trade and led to enormous influence over the Global South, thus restoring the West’s global market share and influence. Such a radical policy change would have major economic and therefore political repercussions that could destabilize the country, not to mention ending its superpower rise, so it wouldn’t be done voluntarily.
US influence over Venezuela’s and possibly soon Iran’s and Nigeria’s energy exports and trade ties with China could be weaponized via threats of curtailment or cut-offs in parallel with pressure upon its Gulf allies to do the same in pursuit of this goal, but this might not suffice for ensuring China’s surrender. That’s why Trump 2.0 is also seeking a resource-centric strategic partnership with Russia that could deprive China of access to those of its deposits in which the US would massively invest in that scenario.
The quid pro quo for injecting billions of dollars into the Russian economy, including through the potential return of some of its estimated $300 billion in frozen assets for this purpose, is for Russia to concede on some of its security-related goals in Ukraine. That’s unacceptable for Putin and is why he’s thus far rejected Trump’s proposal. Nevertheless, even without Russia’s de facto (even if unaware) role in its grand strategy, the US can still apply more pressure upon China through traditional military means.
As Michael McNair notes in his article about “The Bridge at the Center of the Pentagon”, the US’ reassertion of influence over the Western Hemisphere “is a prerequisite for sustaining power projection into the Indo-Pacific” for the abovementioned purpose, which aligns with Elbridge Colby’s framework. He’s the Under Secretary of War for Policy and is actively implementing the ideas that he shared in his 2021 book titled “The Strategy of Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Conflict”.
McNair compellingly argues that the new National Security Strategy has Colby’s fingerprints all over it, which makes sense given his position, and explains how Trump 2.0’s grand strategy is shaped by his work. As he wrote, “Colby’s core claim is that U.S. strategy in the 21st century should aim to prevent China from achieving hegemony over Asia. The rest of his framework follows from that point.” This is precisely what the ‘Trump Doctrine’, which has recently become much clearer, aims to achieve.
The US’ reassertion of influence over the Western Hemisphere, the policy of which can be described as ‘Fortress America’, would provide it with the resources and markets required for raising the defense budget by over 50% from nearly $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion like Trump just declared that he wants to do. The US’ drastically ramped-up military-industrial production would then go towards militarily coercing China into submitting itself to the US through the trade-related means that were earlier touched upon.
The ’Trump Doctrine’ is therefore all about the US’ continued military overmatch vis-à-vis China together with placing the US in a position where it can complementarily deny China access to the energy and markets that it requires to maintain its growth and thus its superpower trajectory. The first will be fueled by tariffs and the profits from ‘Fortress America’ while the others are furthered by subordinating the EU, pressuring the Gulf, and coercing strategic BRI partners (Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria, etc.) into submission.
Everything that Trump 2.0 has done so far aligns with these imperatives and modi operandi, including policies that haven’t succeeded such as the US’ attempted subordination of India and efforts to clinch a resource-centric strategic partnership with Russia at the expense of its security-related goals in Ukraine. Even Trump’s hatred of BRICS makes sense when viewed through this paradigm since he and his team perceive it as a Chinese-dominated front for internationalizing the yuan and weakening the dollar.
In sum, the US’ grand strategy as encapsulated by the Colby-influenced ‘Trump Doctrine’ is to coerce China into subordination, which it aims to achieve through a Reagan-esque military buildup with its AUKUS+ allies as well as entering into positions to deny it access to energy and markets. The end goal is to restore the US’ unipolar hegemony, first over the Americas and then the Global West (EU, the Gulf, and Indo-Pacific allies), the Global South, and finally China, with Russia relegated to a junior partner.
