Leader of the free world has never been a role Trump has embraced. The world has gotten the message

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. presidents usually pay lip service at least to being leaders of the free world, at the helm of a mighty democracy and military that allies worldwide can rally around and reasonably depend upon for support in return.

Not so under President-elect Donald Trump, a critic of many existing U.S. alliances, whose win of a second term this week had close European partners calling for a new era of self-reliance not dependent on American goodwill.

“We must not delegate forever our security to America,” French President Emmanuel Macron said at a European summit Thursday.

Based on Trump’s first term and campaign statements, the U.S. will become less predictable, more chaotic, colder to allies and warmer to some strongmen, and much more transactional in picking friends globally than before. America’s place in world affairs and security will fundamentally change, both critics and supporters of Trump say.

His backers say he simply will be choosier about U.S. alliances and battles than previous presidents.

When it comes to the U.S. role on the world stage, no more talk of the country as leader of the free world, said Fiona Hill, a former Russia adviser to Trump and preceding U.S. presidents.

Not PARSE.LY: Donald Trump

Trump’s pick of Rubio as America’s top diplomat jolts Latin America, long accustomed to US neglect

 

Trump wants to end ‘wokeness’ in education. He has vowed to use federal money as leverage

 

As Trump picks Florida men for top jobs, new political possibilities open up in the Sunshine State

 

Maybe “the free-for-all world, his leadership?” Hill suggested in a recent European Council for Foreign Relations podcast. “I mean, what exactly is it that we’re going to be leading here?”

Trump, with varying degrees of consistency, has been critical of NATO and support for Ukraine and Taiwan, two democracies under threat that depend on U.S. military support to counter Russia and China.

Trump has shown little interest in the longstanding U.S. role as anchor of strategic alliances with European and Indo-Pacific democracies. Before the election, partners and adversaries already were reevaluating their security arrangements in preparation for Trump’s possible return.

European allies in particular bolstered efforts to build up their own and regional defenses, rather than rely on the U.S. as the anchor of NATO, the mutual-defense pact both Trump and running mate JD Vance have spoken of scathingly. Within hours of Trump’s win over Vice President Kamala Harris this week, defense chiefs of France and Germany scheduled talks to address the impact.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin have appeared to shape war strategies with hopes that Trump could allow them freer rein.

Victoria Coates, a security adviser to Trump in his first term, rejects any portrayal of him as isolationist.

“I think he is extremely judicious about the application of the American military, and about potentially getting embroiled in conflicts we can’t resolve,” she said recently on a security podcast.

As evidence of his engagement globally, Coates pointed to Trump’s support of Israel as it wages wars against Iranian-backed militant groups in Gaza and Lebanon.

She called Iran’s nuclear program the “greatest concern” abroad and suggested its progress toward the possibility of nuclear weapons meant Trump might have to act more forcefully than in his first term, when he surged sanctions on Iran in what he called a “maximum pressure” campaign.

Trump, long an open admirer of Putin, has been most consistent in pointing to U.S. support of Ukraine for possible policy change.

Philip Breedlove, a former Air Force general and top NATO commander, said he can see both positive expectations and deep concerns for Ukraine and NATO in the next four years under Trump.

While Trump’s NATO rhetoric during his first administration was often harsh, it didn’t lead to any actual U.S. troop reductions in Europe or decreased support for the alliance, Breedlove said. And 23 NATO nations are spending at least 2% of their gross domestic product on defense, compared with 10 in 2020 — a showing that now negates a persistent Trump complaint.

More concerning, Breedlove said, is Trump’s vow to end the war in Ukraine right away.

While that goal is noble, “ending wars on terms that are appropriate is one thing. Capitulating to an enemy in order to stop a conflict is a different thing. And that’s what worries me,” Breedlove said.

He and others have warned that an end to the war that gives Russia additional territory in Ukraine will set a bad precedent. European nations fear it will embolden Putin to come after them.

So do supporters of Taiwan, a democratically run island that China has said it will one day annex, by force if necessary. Trump has ranged from saying Taiwan should pay the U.S. for its defense support to claiming he could charm Chinese President Xi Jinping out of threatening Taiwan.

“One thing that does make me nervous about Trump vis-à-vis the Taiwan Strait is his reliance on unpredictability, his reliance on being something of a chaotic actor in a situation that is finely balanced,” said Paul Nadeau, an assistant professor of international affairs and political science at Temple University’s Japan campus.

The situation is one “that requires a profound reading of very subtle signals between Taiwan, between the United States, between China,” Nadeau said.

The world that Trump will face has changed, too, with Russia, North Korea, Iran and China further consolidating in a loose, opportunistic alliance to counter the West, and particularly the U.S.

In places where the U.S. has withdrawn, Russia, China and at times Iran have been quick to extend their influence, including in the Middle East.

During his first term, Trump repeatedly vowed to pull all U.S. forces out of Iraq and Syria, at times blindsiding Pentagon officials with sudden statements and tweets that left officials fumbling for answers.

A backlash from some Republican lawmakers and counterproposals by U.S. military leaders slowed those plans, including suggestions that some U.S. troops should remain in Syria to protect oil sites. The U.S. still has about 900 troops in Syria, which could plunge under Trump.

The number of U.S. forces in Iraq is already dwindling based on a new agreement between the Biden administration and Baghdad. The plan would wrap up the U.S.-led coalition’s mission to fight the Islamic State group by next year but likely shift at least some U.S. troops to northern Iraq to support the fight against IS in Syria.

Trump’s first term — followed by Joe Biden’s foreign policy increasingly becoming consumed by unsuccessful efforts to reach cease-fires in the Middle East — already have spurred allies to speak of building up their own military strength and that of smaller regional alliances for security.

“Factored into calculations is there’s going to be less United States than before” on the world stage, Hill said. “There can’t be this dangerous dependency on what happens in Washington, D.C.”

___

AP reporters Didi Tang and Tara Copp in Washington and Ayaka McGill in Tokyo contributed.