Opinion Trump, Race and International Politics

«Back to Home

Opinion Trump, Race and International Politics

E-International Relations
05 Oct 2025, 19:10 GMT+

Inzam P I

Download PDF

Oct 5 2025

thenews2.com/Depositphotos

How can we examine US President Trumps domestic policy and foreign policy through the lens of race? The idea here is not to demonize Trump but to understand him. Many experts tend to describe Trump as transactional, and renowned neo-classical realistFareed Zakariais no exception. The term transactional literally implies a simple give-and-take, buy or sell, or exchange based on mutual benefits. It overlooks Trumps coercive approach to negotiating deals, which includes tariff threats, disrespectful language, and personal verbal attacks onworld leadersand diplomats. His approach thus carries a clear element of supremacism over the other party, going far beyond what a mere transactional framework would suggest.

Pratap Bhanu Mehtaopined that describing Trump as just transactional is a serious mistake as supremacism is embedded in his diplomatic style and he has areputation for bad faith.Simply stating his style as transactional also underestimates his notorious stand on the question of race. Nevertheless, it is both inaccurate and ahistorical to assume that Donald Trump is the only racist president in the history of the United States as well. Racism and racist leadership are not new; racial prejudice is deeply rooted in American society. In fact, condoning racial division has historically been a bipartisan phenomenon. What sets Trump apart is his open expression and exploitation of racial divisions to achieve political objectives, often disregarding the conventions of politically correct language. Like those before him, Trump is a product of the broader social churning that has taken place in American society.

President Trumps racist remarks can neither be justified by saying that he is a democratically elected leader nor by saying he has bagged a considerable number of votes from the non-white population. It can only serve as a fig leaf to cover his racist comments. Moreover, such arguments risk negating the heterogeneity among non-white populations and neglect the effect of discursive circulation of dominant racist discourse. Supporting FBI data,Griffin Sims Edwards and Stephen Rushin, in their research article, used time series analysis and panel regression techniques to provide an empirical basis for concluding that hate crimes and prejudice-driven violence spiked during Trumps election campaigns in the United States, marking the second-highest peak in the past 25 years. It is equally not surprising that Trump won the elections because the majority of voters in the country consider him a warrior, all-powerful, who came in to preserve the pristine white culture. Racism, sexism, and xenophobia are the three main pillars of his policy gaining currency in American society. AsProfessor Shaun Narineargues, Trumps deliberate attempt to portray America as a victim of globalisation is to appease his American voters, who have been frustrated with decreasing employment opportunities and increased paranoia about outsiders taking over their jobs. Trump, as a smart politician, has effectively monetised such sentiments to garner popular support.

According toStuart Halls theory of representation, words are the codes that produce meaning and can be expressed in spoken form. So, from a social constructivist perspective, words do convey meaning and reflect ones viewpoints; therefore, it is paramount to analyse the inflammatory remarks and crude references made by President Trump. The instrumental utilisation of X (formerly Twitter) and the emerging role of the state-tech-entertainment complex in the permeation and normalisation of the racist comments could not be avoided either. It was more evident in the first administration than the current one. His racist comments against football playerColin Kaepernick, his obsessionto portray Obama as Black and Harris as Indian, and his portrayal ofBaltimore as rat-infestedandHaiti and El Salvador as shithole nationsindicate the gravity of racist conceptual map that he subscribes to and advocates for.

The connection between ethnic nationalism and racism also needs much attention here.Andrew Gawthorpecontends that while he occasionally praised Chinas civilisational legacy, he prioritised the interests of Western civilisation and at times demarcated itsdistinction from China inexplicitly racial terms. He perceived Chinas economic and cultural rise over the United States as a threat to Western civilization. His propaganda during COVID-19, exemplified by labelling it theChina virus or kung flu,and the disrespectful treatment of Indian immigrants duringdeportation, illustrate this tendency. Thus, it is not a misnomer to say that he regarded Asian Americans as degenerate and a threat to the western civilization. Remember, he also categorized Latino immigrants as criminal invaders, andrelegitimized overt white nationalism. The Trump administration demonised the immigrants by considering them not fully American, less than human, a threat, rapists, and genetically criminals. His attacks onDEIprogrammes is not only to cater to the emotive appeals of conservative white supremacist groups but also a direct attack on anti-racist Black movements that got strengthened in the aftermath of George Floyds death. It is the same positionality of white privilege that induces him to comfortablyfreeze on civil rights litigationand policing reforms.

Many experts find comfort in believing that Trump is a deal maker. However, if one examines Trumps role as a supposed smart and honest broker, one is compelled to conclude that the facts and reality do not add up. In fact, Trump has a deft hand with diplomacy. His mediatory efforts often worsened conflicts, as seen in the cases of IndiaPakistan, RussiaUkraine, IsraelIran, and IsraelPalestine. He did not have a problem with Russia taking over Ukraine either. His temporary reach out to Russia was primarily due to its rise as an emboldened adversary, partly its civilizational heritage, and a reasonably resilient economy despite the sanctions. A wise head of government knows what he knows and what he does not. This self-awareness is precisely what is missing in many electoral autocrats, including Trump. Trump is a staunch carrier of whatGawthorpecalls civilizational Wilsonianism by which he believes that he is on a civilizing mission. His proposition to transform Gaza intothe Riviera of the Middle Eastcan also be read as reflecting his assumption of the self (America) as civilized, while casting the other (Gazans) as backward. Neither imperialism nor orientalism alone could explain his actions. Thus, it is a tough time for the scholars of international relations to theorise about them. Either a combination of both, or neither, could explain his actions.

Another prevailing argument is that he isthoughtless. But he is far from banal. His words and actions are deliberate, and he is clearly aware of their implications. Perhaps, he is merely a real estate guy striving to make his mark on global history. Trump does not hold the love for peace that many assume; his mediation appears less about achieving genuine peace and more about gaining fame. America remains interested in resolving conflicts only insofar as doing so serves its own interests. His aim is loud and clear: Make America Great Again (MAGA). Trump will pursue peace only if it offers him tangible rewardswhether that be apersonal gain, access to rich mineral mines from the parties involved, or increased investment in the United States, as exemplified in the case of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.

We need to look at certain issues often sidelined in mainstream IR discourse. To this end, the question of race, its influence on the opinions of political leaders, and its subsequent impact on the framing of foreign policy, should not be neglected. Deracializing IR is an inseparable mission of the decolonisation project. In this age of what C. Rajamohan callscon-internor conservative international, a marriage of convenience between populism and multiple factors like pro-market transactional economic policy, anti-climate politics, anti-immigration, and racist ideologies cannot be overlooked as well. It is also worth considering how these interrelations shape the domestic and foreign policy of a state. The evidence presented in this piece therefore confirms that race remains an important if not primary factor influencing both the domestic and foreign policy of the United States in the 21st century. To paraphrasePratap Bhanu Mehtaand apply it to the context of race under the Trump administration, it can be observed that there is a schadenfreude over the fact that the racist mask came off the international order. Racism in US foreign policyis not implicit anymore. The complexity of language used in expressing, permeating, and normalising racism has been shed. Millions benefit from racist discourse, and it is therefore likely to continue in the United Stateseven after Trump leaves the office.Now, as students, scholars, and teachers of IR, what can we do?

AsSankaran Krishnasuccinctly puts it: We have to work and see around the dazzling blindness of white IR and its abstractions, accepting and reiterating the conjoined histories that constitute us and our craft, telling us what to do tomorrow. These words are a timely call to take race seriously in international relations. Our syllabi and pedagogical practices must address the inbuilt racist biases and challenge the hierarchies of knowledge that shape the discipline. We must also make concerted efforts to foster a politically conscious approach within the discipline. Indeed, such a deracialization process on the path of decolonization involves not just social and psychological reform but also epistemic reconstitution and continuous resistance against the hegemonic discourse that operates at the unit, systemic, and planetary levels.