One of Trump’s election pledges was to end the war in Ukraine. Even though a more neutral approach was anticipated during his presidency, most leaders and scholars did not imagine that President Trump and JD Vance would pressure Zelenskyy publicly in front of millions of spectators. The recent meeting in the Oval Office took place on February 28, where the Ukrainian President had agreed to sign a rare minerals deal with the US Administration. What was seen as a huge opportunity to reaffirm the long-standing US support for Ukraine turned into a colossal failure following a heated discussion that escorted President Zelenskyy out of the White House empty-handed. This public confrontation cast doubt over the American commitment to achieving a fair and sustainable peace treaty with security guarantees between the Russian Federation and Ukraine. Now, it seems certain that US foreign policy under the new administration will be nothing like that of its predecessors. Donald Trump’s doctrine will truly be based on “America First”, even if it means making concessions on the territorial integrity and national security of American allies in Europe. 

The second Trump presidency oversees a crumbling world order with wars in Ukraine and Gaza that trigger further deepening of geopolitical rifts. However, Trump’s transactional diplomacy is currently reshaping US foreign policy by prioritising American economic interests in Ukraine. After meeting Russian officials in Saudi Arabia, the Trump Administration’s tone has drastically altered. There is now a hawkish approach towards Ukraine and its president. For instance, the economic focus is not on rebuilding Ukraine but on how Washington can get the most out of the country. This is how Trump is leveraging Ukraine’s mass mineral resources as a bargaining chip, as he is demanding that Ukraine pay USD 0.5 trillion they “owe to the US” for the aid. Despite the Ukrainian officials’ rejection of this number, which they deemed absurd, it reflects an often-undermined commercial focus on postwar aid since American aid is usually bundled up with strings attached. From the Marshall Plan to the aid for Ukraine, Washington’s economic interest has consistently proven to be a financial tool used to bail out its allies. 

The current administration’s most effective tactic is focused on leveraging Ukrainian dependency on the US military, intelligence and financial aid. As of 6 March 2025, the CIA Director John Ratcliffe confirmed that the intelligence flow to Ukraine, which enables the country to use advanced technologies essential for drone operations, such as the Starlink satellite services, has been halted. It is a huge blow for the Ukrainian army while the Russian Armed Forces continue to utilise the Starlink services with no restriction. President Trump’s vision for peace involves controversial concessions that paralyse Ukraine’s ability to act within its rights to be a sovereign nation controlling every inch of its territorial integrity. Keith Kellogg, who is the special envoy for Ukraine, strategises the recognition of occupied Crimea and portions of the Donbas region. He perceives this approach as comprehensible due to Ukraine’s long-term inability to recapture the occupied territory while asserting the futility of continuing to fight against Russia. This policy opposes former President Joe Biden's determination to help Ukraine reconquer the annexed pieces of its territory. This foreign policy trend raises another question: would legitimising territorial annexation set a dangerous pattern and undermine international norms and order? Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth’s February 2025 address to the Ukraine Defence Contact Group also underscored America's commitment to Ukraine’s security. It now seems like the European allies ought to support Ukraine’s defence and security without relying on American military supplies. This shift marks a new point in the war as it emboldens Russia’s offensive capabilities that were halted with the help of US military technology and equipment.

As to Ukraine, accepting the demands of the America First doctrine would have long-term implications for its economy and security. It would establish a neo-colonial power dynamic in distributing its natural resources due to American corporations’ disproportionate control over critical sectors, coupled with what is deemed as unacceptable territorial concessions on Ukraine's territorial integrity would cripple the country’s economic backbone. It is also likely that such a scenario would face challenges for reconstruction and deepen Ukraine’s dependency on external actors. 

Another important factor often pointed out regarding Trump’s “America First” policy is how it might undermine the rules-based post-WWII international order, prioritising short-term gains for a third party over the collective security of a Western ally. This approach is also a game-changer for America’s European allies. The EU Council’s approval of a $866 billion defence plan to rearm Europe is a clear indication of a fragmented view of a more united NATO and Western alliance. Disagreements over deploying peacekeeping troops to Ukraine exist. The Italian Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, has firmly rejected any involvement of Italian forces in the proposal put forth by Macron and Starmer. European support for Ukraine’s security remains a top priority at the continental level, as underscored by the London Summit, which brought together European leaders alongside delegations from Türkiye and Canada.

The “America First” doctrine is formulated in a way deemed to maximise the U.S. national interests. It has put pressure on Ukraine to balance some territorial concessions and economic means to regain American support. However, it does not mean President Trump’s position is entirely pro-Russian. For instance, the announcement of potential large-scale sanctions and tariffs on Russia marks a dramatic shift. The President stated he is seriously considering imposing certain measures until a peaceful ceasefire or final settlement for the conflict is signed. He also noted that Russia’s intensified attacks on Ukraine seem to incapacitate its intention to end the hostilities. Additionally, Trump urged both parties to start the negotiations as soon as possible. 

The threat of new sanctions on Russia is a relief for Ukraine, but it does not entirely mean good news for Kiev. The transactional nature of the Trump Administration will continue to pressure the Ukrainian leadership to make compromises on their economy and territory. While the suspension of military aid has strained relations between Washington and Kiev, it also revealed the unpredictability of what is to come, as Trump has suddenly announced examining the option to impose sanctions on Russia. This behaviour fits the concept of the so-called “mad man” strategy that relies on cultivating unpredictability to coerce adversaries and allies into concessions, blending bluffing with calculated threats.

At the end of the negotiations, Ukraine will not only have to navigate through a complicated geopolitical landscape to preserve its territorial integrity but also influence global norms and the balance of power in 21st-century geopolitics. It is not only about Ukraine, but every single country that faces the growing pressure of Russian revisionism, from Georgia to Syria. For instance, it was Russia that broke the latest ceasefire agreement with Ukraine, which triggered tensions in Washington. However, during the Riyadh negotiations in March, it was agreed that both parties would cease attacks targeting energy infrastructure and a Black Sea ceasefire to ensure safe navigation and prevent military use of commercial vessels. The priority for the Russian delegation was to obtain sanction relief, including eased SWIFT access as well as other banking operations, while the Ukrainian side is focused on releasing prisoners of war, exchange of hostages and the return of Ukrainian children who the Russian Armed Forces kidnapped. The Black Sea deal seems to be a significant step towards de-escalation, but it also remains fragile because of ongoing attacks and mistrust between the parties.