Navigating
Disruption
Ally & Partner Responses
to U.S. Foreign Policy
The CSIS Geopolitics and Foreign Policy Department | October 6th, 2025
The second Trump administration features policies that bring both challenges and opportunities for traditional U.S. allies and partners. Some of these ring familiar from President Trump’s first term, but others are entirely new and paradigm-shifting in their impact.
This compendium features eight analyses of how America’s allies and partners around the world are responding to, and coping with, U.S. policies. For each case, the authors define which U.S. policy shifts are most significant for the ally, as well as the range of actions being undertaken to manage relations and preserve interests.
Paradigmatic shifts in U.S. foreign policy take place in the context of disruptive changes in the global order. Conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, U.S.-China great power competition, increasing cohesion among autocratic actors, and the weaponization of trade and finance by the two largest economic actors in the international system amplify the challenges faced by allies and partners.
“America First” policies generally challenge the notion that allies and partners are assets for the United States; they are seen instead as sapping U.S. power. This effectively puts the custodial burden of the alliance’s welfare in the hands of the ally. Allies and partners must navigate the balance between highly transactional policies like those emanating from Washington and policies that sustain and prevent damage to long-term alliance equities with the United States.
When examining how U.S. allies and partners have coped with the policy changes wrought by Washington, one could infer some common traits. While allies initially wish to resist U.S. demands, promising not to “bend the knee,” many seek to make deals with Washington in the end. The reasons vary for each case, but a common motivation relates to internalizing the responsibility for identifying solutions that preserve long-term alliance equities.
In many cases, allies can ill afford disruptive relations with their primary security and economic partner in times of acute uncertainty. In this sense, the Trump administration is wielding U.S. power, but its employment of transactional means could invite unpredictable consequences for alliance ties and U.S. interests.
Read the full report, featuring analyses and expert insights from the CSIS Geopolitics and Foreign Policy Department.
The second Trump administration features policies that bring both challenges and opportunities for traditional U.S. allies and partners. Some of these ring familiar from President Trump’s first term, but others are entirely new and paradigm-shifting in their impact. This compendium features eight analyses of how America’s allies and partners around the world are responding to, and coping with, U.S. policies. For each case, the authors define which U.S. policy shifts are most significant for the ally, as well as the range of actions being undertaken to manage relations and preserve interests.
Paradigmatic shifts in U.S. foreign policy take place in the context of disruptive changes in the global order. Conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, U.S.-China great power competition, increasing cohesion among autocratic actors, and the weaponization of trade and finance by the two largest economic actors in the international system amplify the challenges faced by allies and partners. “America First” policies generally challenge the notion that allies and partners are assets for the United States; they are seen instead as sapping U.S. power. This effectively puts the custodial burden of the alliance’s welfare in the hands of the ally. Allies and partners must navigate the balance between highly transactional policies like those emanating from Washington and policies that sustain and prevent damage to long-term alliance equities with the United States.
When examining how U.S. allies and partners have coped with the policy changes wrought by Washington, one could infer some common traits. While allies initially wish to resist U.S. demands, promising not to “bend the knee,” many seek to make deals with Washington in the end. The reasons vary for each case, but a common motivation relates to internalizing the responsibility for identifying solutions that preserve long-term alliance equities. In many cases, allies can ill afford disruptive relations with their primary security and economic partner in times of acute uncertainty. In this sense, the Trump administration is wielding U.S. power, but its employment of transactional means could invite unpredictable consequences for alliance ties and U.S. interests.
Read the full report, featuring analyses and expert insights from the CSIS Geopolitics and Foreign Policy Department.
Using the cases in this compendium, the authors infer a range of tactical and strategic actions in response to U.S. “America First” policies:
Seek a face-to-face meeting.
Allies all seek leader-to-leader meetings—not as a last resort but as the first step—given that the decisionmaking apparatus in the Trump administration features many loyalists around the president with little input from traditional foreign policy professionals.
Minimize risk.
Allies seek to minimize abandonment and entrapment fears and any damage to alliance equities from Trump’s policies to the best of their ability because they must bear the custodial burden of the alliance.
Flatter the leader.
Allies avoid disagreements with the U.S. leader (particularly in front of the camera), focusing instead on superficial flattery. They all seek to avoid a “Zelensky moment.”
Prepare headline summitry deliverables.
Allies come prepared with a large and flashy package of incentives that Trump can trumpet as wins, putting aside their policy instincts and focusing on the show. However, allies operate with the tacit understanding that the commitments may not all need to be fulfilled.
Practice self-help.
In most cases, particularly outside of the European Union, allies and partners have responded to U.S. demands not by banding together to compare notes and exercise leverage in response to Washington, but individually and bilaterally, seeking expedient deals that address the immediate problem, such as reducing U.S. tariffs. They practice self-help rather than long-term mutually beneficial approaches vis-á-vis other similarly affected U.S. partners.
Identify contingency plans.
Allies identify alternative trading or security partners as insurance in case of alliance failure and also as a form of leverage over Washington. But concrete efforts to formalize and invest in new relationships that might yield joint strategies for engaging Washington have yet to emerge.
Maximize reward.
Given the flux created by U.S. policies, allies identify and capitalize on opportunities to find new areas of cooperation that align with their interests (while giving Trump the credit), thus creating positive-sum solutions.
Allied reactions to the paradigm shift in U.S. policies are not uniform, but these responses provide a good metric. Some allies may adopt policies at the less cooperative end of the spectrum, while others might do more for the sake of preserving alliance equities.
The compendium chapters explore the responses of Africa; Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific; Europe; Japan; Latin America and the Caribbean; the Middle East; South Korea; and Southeast Asia. Each author concludes their analyses with an outlook for the future and recommendations for policy.
AFRICA
Oge Onubogu, Director and Senior Fellow, Africa Program
Trump's Africa Policy: Commerce and Domestic Politics Clash
As Africa’s geopolitical importance grows, the U.S. must clearly define why it is the preferred partner for the continent. Only then can the Trump administration’s commercial diplomacy strategy deliver for both the U.S. and Africa.
"The United States must rightfully prioritize its domestic national interests. But foreign policy interests are inextricably intertwined with domestic priorities in today’s globally interdependent world, even for the economically powerful United States."
AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND,
& THE PACIFIC
Charles Edel, Senior Adviser and Australia Chair
Kathryn Paik, Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Australia Chair
John Augé, Program Manager, Australia Chair
Pacific Perspectives on Trump's Second Term: Uncertainty and Adaptation
With Washington prioritizing America First, partners across the Pacific are weighing their options. Perceptions of a capricious and transactional Washington are creating pressure to reconsider long-standing assumptions about the alliance.
"U.S. policies are having the combined effect of undermining the United States’ moral authority and influence across the Pacific. . . . Ultimately, this perception of U.S. retrenchment and unreliability creates opportunities for China to expand its influence."
EUROPE
Max Bergmann, Director, Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program and Stuart Center
Transatlantic Relations Under Trump: An Uneasy Peace
President Trump’s transactional stance and skepticism toward Europe has shocked transatlantic ties linking trade, security, and Ukraine. Europe has been cautious, but looming fights over defense, tech, and trade could rupture the relationship.
"Trump’s efforts to make transatlantic relations transactional only works so long as the United States continues to provide the service of defending Europe. Otherwise, the client will inevitably fire the provider."
JAPAN
Kristi Govella, Senior Adviser and Japan Chair
Japan's Response to Trump 2.0: Sustaining U.S. Ties, Strengthening International Partnerships
Japan has continued to behave like a responsible partner, accommodating U.S. demands where possible while also trying to protect its own national interests. However, recent changes in U.S. foreign policy have deepened Tokyo’s concerns about Washington’s reliability.
"Tokyo is pursuing a dual strategy of maintaining a close relationship with the United States while also strategically strengthening partnerships with other countries to stabilize the international environment and fill diplomatic gaps left by changes in U.S. policy."
LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN
Christopher Hernández-Roy, Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, Americas Program
Juliana Rubio, Associate Director, Americas Program
Jessie Hu and Sam Smith, Former Interns, Americas Program
President Trump's Latin America Policy: Short-term Gains, Long-Term Risks
President Trump has given the Western Hemisphere more attention in nine months than most past administrations since the Cold War, with a return of hard power, the elimination of soft power and the use of economic coercion. Some in the region now regret getting the attention they wished for.
"These efforts may produce some results desired by the Trump administration in the short term, but they will likely create more distance between Washington and the region over time, to the benefit of U.S. rivals."
THE MIDDLE EAST
Mona Yacoubian, Director and Senior Adviser, Middle East Program
The Trump Administration's Middle East Policy: Shaping an Emerging Regional Order
The Trump administration stands before a historic opportunity to help usher the Middle East into a new era of stability and prosperity. Its engagement in the Middle East is shaping the contours of the emerging regional order—whether by default or design.
"The administration could squander this opportunity if it fails to exploit openings for peace and de-escalation, disregards the negative consequences of untethered military action, or falls into the false lull of inaction."
SOUTH KOREA
Victor Cha, President, Geopolitics and Foreign Policy Department; and Korea Chair
South Korea's Response to U.S. Demands: Minimize Risk, Maximize Reward
South Korea has contended with changes under President Trump not by resisting, but by embracing them with a "let's make a deal" attitude, allowing it to minimize risk and maximize reward while using the unconventionality of the administration to advance its own agenda.
"Unlike other U.S. allies and partners, however, South Korean leaders have contended with [the changes in U.S. policy] not by resisting, but by embracing them—making agreements that appease their ally while laying the groundwork for new areas of cooperation."
SOUTHEAST ASIA
Gregory B. Poling, Director and Senior Fellow, Southeast Asia Program and Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative
Southeast Asia Navigates Trump's Return: Quick Deals, Lasting Dread
Most Southeast Asian states are seeking to mitigate both the short- and long-term risks of partnering with the United States by seeking new partnerships to hedge against future U.S. economic pressure. The United States must make its policy more predictable.
"Every government in Southeast Asia understood that a second Trump administration would alter U.S. foreign assistance programs, seek to address trade imbalances, and show less commitment to international rules and institutions. But they also thought they would be better able to navigate those shifts."
Read the full report, featuring analyses and expert insights from the CSIS Geopolitics and Foreign Policy Department.
This report is made possible by general support to CSIS.
No direct sponsorship contributed to this report.
Editors
Victor Cha, President, Geopolitics and Foreign Policy Department; and Korea Chair
Nicholas Szechenyi, Vice President, Geopolitics and Foreign Policy Department; and Senior Fellow, Japan Chair
Will Todman, Chief of Staff, Geopolitics and Foreign Policy Department; and Senior Fellow, Middle East Program
Editorial Management & Review
Phillip Meylan, Deputy Director of Publications, External Relations
Hunter Hallman, Associate Director of Publications, External Relations
Madison Bruno, Publications Coordinator, External Relations
iDeas Lab Story Production
Design, management & production: Sarah B. Grace & Gina Kim
Design assistance: Shannon Yeung
Development by: Mariel de la Garza
PDF report design & implementation: William H. Taylor
Video production: Shawn Fok & Michael Kohler
Image Credits
Cover: Sarah B. Grace with assets from Adobe Stock
Globes: Gina Kim with assets from Adobe Stock
Built with Shorthand