When Donald Trump entered the White House in 2017, his foreign policy was guided less by strategy than by spectacle. He railed against China’s economic rise, cozied up to autocrats like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-il, and treated tariffs as if they were the magic bullet that could solve America’s deep structural trade imbalances. Today, as Trump returns to the political stage with renewed promises of tariffs and strong-arm deals, the names Xi Jinping, Putin, Modi, Kim, and China itself resurface—not merely as adversaries or allies, but as symbols of a shifting global order that the United States no longer controls.

Xi Jinping and the China Question

No name looms larger than Xi Jinping’s. China’s meteoric rise is not just an economic phenomenon—it’s a deliberate strategy of state-driven industrial policy, global Belt and Road expansion, and a pivot away from Western-dominated financial systems. Trump’s “Trump Tariffs,” slapped hastily on billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese goods, were supposed to force Beijing to bend. Instead, they triggered retaliatory tariffs, hurt U.S. farmers, and disrupted global supply chains.

What Trump misunderstood is that Xi’s China plays the long game. Tariffs may bruise, but they rarely break a system built on strategic patience and a billion-person domestic market. While Trump crowed about short-term “wins,” China doubled down on technological self-sufficiency, investing in semiconductors, AI, and renewable energy—the industries that will define the next century.

Putin and the Politics of Power

Then there’s Vladimir Putin. For decades, U.S. presidents treated Russia as either a Cold War adversary or a declining power. Trump, however, blurred the lines. He famously sided with Putin over U.S. intelligence agencies on election interference and downplayed Russia’s authoritarian grip.

Yet tariffs and trade were never the centerpiece of Trump’s relationship with Moscow. Instead, it was optics—two strongmen shaking hands, projecting toughness, while the underlying reality was far more complex. Under Trump’s watch, Putin advanced Russian interests in Ukraine and the Middle East, betting correctly that the U.S. would remain divided, distracted, and hesitant. 

Modi and the Mirage of Alignment

Narendra Modi’s India presents a different challenge. Trump once called Modi “India’s greatest friend,” praising him at joint rallies and touting trade partnerships. But behind the photo-ops, Trump’s tariffs on Indian steel and aluminum triggered retaliatory measures from New Delhi. India—proud of its sovereignty and skeptical of Western dictates—refused to play second fiddle.

Modi’s Hindu nationalist project, focused inward on reshaping India’s democratic institutions, made him an unreliable partner in Trump’s “America First” vision. While India shares concerns about China’s rise, it does not see itself as a junior partner in Washington’s chessboard strategy. Trump’s transactional approach—treating allies as clients and adversaries as bargaining chips—only widened the rift.

Kim Jong-il and the Theater of Diplomacy

Trump’s summits with Kim Jong-il were perhaps the purest example of foreign policy as reality TV. For the first time in history, a sitting U.S. president met face-to-face with North Korea’s leader. The images were dramatic: Trump crossing into the DMZ, Kim smiling in front of international cameras. But what did it yield?

No dismantling of nuclear weapons. No substantive agreements. No easing of human rights abuses. Instead, the meetings served as global theater—allowing Trump to claim historic breakthroughs while giving Kim legitimacy on the world stage. Tariffs couldn’t move Pyongyang, and flattery only emboldened its nuclear ambitions.

The Tariff Trap

Tariffs became Trump’s hammer, and to him, every foreign policy problem looked like a nail. But tariffs are a blunt instrument. They can inflict pain, but they rarely solve structural imbalances rooted in labor exploitation, technological advancement, or geopolitical strategy. Worse, tariffs often hurt the very people Trump claimed to represent: working-class Americans.

Farmers in Iowa, auto workers in Michigan, and small manufacturers across the Midwest bore the brunt of retaliatory tariffs. Meanwhile, Wall Street giants and multinational corporations found ways to shift supply chains and protect profits. The result? Rising inequality at home and diminished credibility abroad.

What This Means for the U.S.

Xi, Putin, Modi, and Kim represent more than just foreign leaders. Together, they embody a world where U.S. dominance is no longer guaranteed. Trump’s reliance on tariffs and personal flattery is symptomatic of a deeper problem: the absence of a coherent strategy for engaging a multipolar world.

Progressives must recognize that the U.S. cannot tariff its way out of decline, nor can it charm dictators into submission. What’s needed is a new vision—one that emphasizes global solidarity, climate cooperation, fair trade, and human rights. The alternative is a perpetual cycle of strongman politics, where tariffs masquerade as solutions and diplomacy becomes little more than a photo-op.

Conclusion

The names Xi, Putin, Modi, Kim, and Trump may appear on a caption file as if they were mere keywords. But they are more than markers; they are signals of a global shift. America’s old playbook—threats, tariffs, and military might—cannot hold together a fractured world. Progressives must write the new chapter, one that confronts inequality at home while building genuine partnerships abroad.