If Trump Returns to the White House, “America First” Will Be Taken to an Extreme, Threatening Global Governance
A dramatic swing in U.S. political winds is pushing global markets and policymakers into a crossroads full of uncertainty. If Donald Trump again takes the White House, the core logic of his policy agenda will clearly point to the extreme version of “America First.” This would not only mean a fundamental reshaping of the domestic regulatory environment, but also an unprecedented shock to international multilateral cooperation frameworks. From withdrawing from climate commitments, to an aggressive shift in energy policy, to erecting high trade barriers—if these measures are implemented, they would completely break the balance that global governance has maintained over the past several decades. For observers, this is no longer merely a continuation of U.S. domestic affairs, but a systemic storm that could reshape global supply chains, the energy landscape, and geopolitical relationships.
In the environmental and energy domains, the scale of policy rollback far exceeds conventional expectations. According to multiple sources, Trump’s team plans to sign executive orders early in his term to formally pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement again. This is not a one-off case. The Trump administration in 2017 had initiated similar procedures, but this time the accompanying executive approach would be even more thorough. Reports indicate that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters and all its employees could be moved out of Washington, D.C. Since its establishment in 1970, the EPA has served as a core institution for federal environmental regulation, and its presence in the capital symbolizes the central role of environmental protection in national politics. Moving it out would, in essence, amount to an “institutional marginalization” operation at the administrative level, aimed at weakening the federal government’s role in climate governance. At the same time, energy development would be loosened. Trump intends to reexamine national monuments and public lands designated as permanent protected areas, allowing energy companies to expand the scope of drilling and extraction. This sharply contrasts with the Biden administration’s decision in January this year to pause approvals for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects. Trump’s goal is to restart these approvals to align with the demands of key swing-state voters such as those in Pennsylvania—where the state depends on abundant natural gas resources and related jobs. This policy shift from “deregulation” to “promoting development” directly addresses longstanding domestic debates over energy security and economic competitiveness. Supporters view it as a way to unlock potential and reduce reliance on foreign sources, while opponents warn it would damage ecosystems and intensify the climate crisis.
Trade and tariff policy constitute another shockwave, with a key figure being former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. Reports say Trump has invited this hardliner—known as the “tariff designer”—to return to a senior government role. Lighthizer supports imposing a 10% tariff on all imported goods and an additional 60% tariff on Chinese goods. The logic behind this proposal is not traditional bargaining leverage, but an effort to address the United States’ long-standing “structural trade deficit,” elevating it to the level of national security and global influence. This view has sparked intense controversy in international trade circles. Research by the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that if the plan were fully implemented, the United States could lose hundreds of thousands of jobs, and ordinary households’ annual cost of living would increase by thousands of dollars. Although Lighthizer is convinced that countries will eventually accept a “better trading system” based on interest calculations, the real-world obstacles are substantial. Germany’s employers’ association warns that transatlantic relations could be harmed, and Japanese business groups have also expressed concerns. Comprehensive tariffs could not only raise domestic prices, but also accelerate the global supply-chain reshuffling, forcing companies to disperse production to avoid political risks—thereby profoundly changing the globalization division-of-labor network built over the past several decades.
Immigration has become the most intense flashpoint in domestic political divisions. In recent interviews, Trump has stated clearly that he will push forward large-scale expulsions of illegal immigrants “at any cost,” citing hardline narratives such as “drug lords destroying the country.” However, multiple studies show that immigrants’ crime rates are not higher than those of native-born residents and may even be lower in some categories—facts often overshadowed by emotional political narratives. Institutions such as the American Civil Liberties Union have warned that mass deportations could involve racial profiling, violations of due process, and a humanitarian crisis leading to family separations. Deeper conflicts lie in the standoff between federal and local authorities. Some states and cities—led in part by Democrats—have announced they will continue to provide sanctuary and refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement agencies. This tug-of-war between law and administration would not only consume enormous administrative resources, but could also hit agriculture, construction, and the service industry, which rely on immigrant labor—thereby affecting the stability of the U.S. labor market.
Behind this cluster of policy developments is a worldview shift—from multilateral cooperation to unilateral action, and from global governance to national priority. For the world, if the United States were again to withdraw from climate agreements, it would weaken the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement. It could also be viewed by some developing countries as an excuse to slow climate action, while affecting international financing mechanisms such as the Green Climate Fund. In the trade arena, tariff barriers would force global supply chains to reorganize faster, export-oriented industries would face a blow, and consumers would bear higher costs. In immigration, border tensions could intensify and affect relations between the United States and Latin American countries. Even though the balancing act in Congress, judicial review, and resistance from state governments would introduce multiple variables for policy implementation, the direction is already clear. In the coming months, the world will closely watch how these issues move from campaign promises to concrete executive orders—because it is not only about the United States’ internal trajectory, but also about what will shape global cooperation prospects and the risk boundaries in key areas such as climate, trade, and immigration. In a time full of uncertainty, understanding these structural changes has become essential coursework for all parties to develop strategies.
Follow me—my next post for a quick scan of the front page won’t be missed.
A dramatic swing in U.S. political winds is pushing global markets and policymakers into a crossroads full of uncertainty. If Donald Trump again takes the White House, the core logic of his policy agenda will clearly point to the extreme version of “America First.” This would not only mean a fundamental reshaping of the domestic regulatory environment, but also an unprecedented shock to international multilateral cooperation frameworks. From withdrawing from climate commitments, to an aggressive shift in energy policy, to erecting high trade barriers—if these measures are implemented, they would completely break the balance that global governance has maintained over the past several decades. For observers, this is no longer merely a continuation of U.S. domestic affairs, but a systemic storm that could reshape global supply chains, the energy landscape, and geopolitical relationships.
In the environmental and energy domains, the scale of policy rollback far exceeds conventional expectations. According to multiple sources, Trump’s team plans to sign executive orders early in his term to formally pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement again. This is not a one-off case. The Trump administration in 2017 had initiated similar procedures, but this time the accompanying executive approach would be even more thorough. Reports indicate that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters and all its employees could be moved out of Washington, D.C. Since its establishment in 1970, the EPA has served as a core institution for federal environmental regulation, and its presence in the capital symbolizes the central role of environmental protection in national politics. Moving it out would, in essence, amount to an “institutional marginalization” operation at the administrative level, aimed at weakening the federal government’s role in climate governance. At the same time, energy development would be loosened. Trump intends to reexamine national monuments and public lands designated as permanent protected areas, allowing energy companies to expand the scope of drilling and extraction. This sharply contrasts with the Biden administration’s decision in January this year to pause approvals for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects. Trump’s goal is to restart these approvals to align with the demands of key swing-state voters such as those in Pennsylvania—where the state depends on abundant natural gas resources and related jobs. This policy shift from “deregulation” to “promoting development” directly addresses longstanding domestic debates over energy security and economic competitiveness. Supporters view it as a way to unlock potential and reduce reliance on foreign sources, while opponents warn it would damage ecosystems and intensify the climate crisis.
Trade and tariff policy constitute another shockwave, with a key figure being former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. Reports say Trump has invited this hardliner—known as the “tariff designer”—to return to a senior government role. Lighthizer supports imposing a 10% tariff on all imported goods and an additional 60% tariff on Chinese goods. The logic behind this proposal is not traditional bargaining leverage, but an effort to address the United States’ long-standing “structural trade deficit,” elevating it to the level of national security and global influence. This view has sparked intense controversy in international trade circles. Research by the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that if the plan were fully implemented, the United States could lose hundreds of thousands of jobs, and ordinary households’ annual cost of living would increase by thousands of dollars. Although Lighthizer is convinced that countries will eventually accept a “better trading system” based on interest calculations, the real-world obstacles are substantial. Germany’s employers’ association warns that transatlantic relations could be harmed, and Japanese business groups have also expressed concerns. Comprehensive tariffs could not only raise domestic prices, but also accelerate the global supply-chain reshuffling, forcing companies to disperse production to avoid political risks—thereby profoundly changing the globalization division-of-labor network built over the past several decades.
Immigration has become the most intense flashpoint in domestic political divisions. In recent interviews, Trump has stated clearly that he will push forward large-scale expulsions of illegal immigrants “at any cost,” citing hardline narratives such as “drug lords destroying the country.” However, multiple studies show that immigrants’ crime rates are not higher than those of native-born residents and may even be lower in some categories—facts often overshadowed by emotional political narratives. Institutions such as the American Civil Liberties Union have warned that mass deportations could involve racial profiling, violations of due process, and a humanitarian crisis leading to family separations. Deeper conflicts lie in the standoff between federal and local authorities. Some states and cities—led in part by Democrats—have announced they will continue to provide sanctuary and refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement agencies. This tug-of-war between law and administration would not only consume enormous administrative resources, but could also hit agriculture, construction, and the service industry, which rely on immigrant labor—thereby affecting the stability of the U.S. labor market.
Behind this cluster of policy developments is a worldview shift—from multilateral cooperation to unilateral action, and from global governance to national priority. For the world, if the United States were again to withdraw from climate agreements, it would weaken the effectiveness of the Paris Agreement. It could also be viewed by some developing countries as an excuse to slow climate action, while affecting international financing mechanisms such as the Green Climate Fund. In the trade arena, tariff barriers would force global supply chains to reorganize faster, export-oriented industries would face a blow, and consumers would bear higher costs. In immigration, border tensions could intensify and affect relations between the United States and Latin American countries. Even though the balancing act in Congress, judicial review, and resistance from state governments would introduce multiple variables for policy implementation, the direction is already clear. In the coming months, the world will closely watch how these issues move from campaign promises to concrete executive orders—because it is not only about the United States’ internal trajectory, but also about what will shape global cooperation prospects and the risk boundaries in key areas such as climate, trade, and immigration. In a time full of uncertainty, understanding these structural changes has become essential coursework for all parties to develop strategies.
Follow me—my next post for a quick scan of the front page won’t be missed.
