Moral compass lost: US foreign policy in 2025

US President Donald Trump is scheduled to deliver a prime-time address to the nation this evening at a moment when public support for his second term has hit new lows.

Speculation about the focus of the president’s speech ranged from efforts to shore up views about his poor handling of the economy at home to perhaps a major announcement on Venezuela, where Trump imposed a blockade of sanctioned oil tankers. But it seems that Trump will use the occasion to sell his 2025 achievements and set an agenda for 2026.

No matter the topic Trump chooses to frame the national conversation as America heads into the holiday season, it is worth taking a step back and reflecting on the bigger story of what has occurred in the United States in 2025 and how these dynamics affect America’s relations with the rest of the world, including the Middle East.

The ledger of Trump’s overall foreign policy at nearly 11 months into his second term is a mixed one, as it always is with every US president at this early stage. Trump has failed in his efforts to end Russia’s war against Ukraine, and there is perhaps even less strategic clarity on America’s course with China than when he came back to office. Trade wars and harsh immigration policies are changing America’s relations with nearly all countries, as well as its overall standing in the world, in uncertain ways.

In the Middle East, Trump helped achieve a second cease-fire in the Gaza war, after doing little to sustain the one that was in place when he took office in January. The president backed Israel’s war against Iran in June, which did extensive damage to Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure, but then offered no clear strategy for what is next on that front. On Syria and Lebanon, the United States remains pragmatically engaged in working to shape their trajectories. Moreover, Trump has prioritized positive ties with key Gulf countries and Israel. But after a year of much activity, the overall picture remains unclear in that part of the world.

The forecast for US foreign policy at the start of Trump 2.0 in January was rife with uncertainty and concerns from many experts. As 2025 draws to a close, much of that assessment remains in place, but one thing has become clear: Whatever pieces of a moral compass that were left guiding the Biden administration’s foreign policy until its final days in office have been completely destroyed by Trump 2.0.

Surveying the damage done to America’s moral compass during Trump 2.0’s first year

Thus far, Trump 2.0’s foreign policy has often seemed to vacillate between spiraling out of control on the one hand, and, on the other, intentionally seeking to upend traditional norms, institutions, and precedents without a clear vision of what comes next. A primary target of these moves has been the framework of freedom and democratic values that informed parts of US foreign policy for decades in both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Trump’s first steps in the early days of his second administration sent clear messages about what he thinks America stands for at home and in the world. He pardoned 1,500 convicted criminals who attacked the US Congress in 2021 in an effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election that Trump lost. This action raised alarm bells domestically and abroad about where America was heading on issues like commitment to the rule of law and the integrity of its own political system, as well as support for law enforcement authorities.

He imposed an initial freeze on all US foreign aid and oversaw the destruction of key national security and public diplomacy institutions, including the US Agency for International Development and the Voice of America, organizations that offered crucial support to millions of people around the world in struggles against poverty and dictatorships. It was not just in the “soft power” realm that Trump 2.0 did damage. Extreme budget cuts combined with morale problems led one-third of the staff at the critically important Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to depart in the spring, undermining America’s readiness.

A reorganization at the State Department downgraded human rights as a priority, and a new prioritization directive for State reports on human rights removed tracking of key issues considered universally accepted human rights, including the right to a fair public trial, freedom of association and assembly, elections and political participation, government corruption, violence against women and minorities, and harassment of human rights organizations.

This unilateral disarmament resulted in undercutting the stability of crucial programs like PEPFAR, a global initiative with bipartisan support established under the George W. Bush administration to counteract HIV/AIDS. Dramatic cuts in public funding for vaccines as well as surprising regulatory policy shifts by the Department of Health and Human Services undercut America’s health security at a time when pandemics remain a threat.

Trump’s moves against immigrants and refugees, including Afghans who served with Americans during 20 years of war, have also sent a loud message about America’s moral compass. Combined with recent harsh rhetoric targeting immigrants, including the president’s incendiary comments earlier this month calling Somalis “garbage,” the tone in America today is nothing close to the inscription that appears on the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor.

As a recent opinion article by Mohamed Osman Mohamed, a Somali immigrant to America, pointed out, these attacks call into question what America stands for at home and in the world:

What saddens me most is the betrayal — not of me but of every American and every institution that helped me get where I am: the caseworkers, teachers, mentors, strangers and government workers who choose to welcome, house and educate people from the farthest corners of the world. Together, they were investing not just in refugees like me but also in an idea that America stays great by living up to its ideals. … When leaders attack refugees, they do not harm only us. They devalue the work of every American who believed in this country’s ideals to help a stranger.

Last but not least, additional damage to America’s moral compass continues in the corrupt and unusual blending of official government business with private-sector dealings of companies involving the Trump family, as well as corporate entities linked to top officials in the Trump administration. This includes ethical and moral questions about business dealings Trump has in places like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar.

The destruction of any semblance of the long-standing moral values framework grounded in freedom and transparency that has informed America’s foreign policy is one key legacy of Trump 2.0’s return to office, and this campaign will have long-term implications for US policy in the Middle East as well.

No overarching moral compass guiding US policy in the Middle East

Supporters of Trump’s foreign policy approach, and in particular in the Middle East, might offer this counterargument: Trump stood by America’s closest partners in the region and defended them against threats from mutual adversaries who do not share our values, like the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Islamic State and Hizballah.

This perspective would stress that Trump’s unpredictable transactionalism has obtained quick results where it matters most: Iran is on its back heels, cease-fires continue to hold (more or less) in Gaza and Lebanon, and Israeli hostages are home. Trump’s recently released National Security Strategy (NSS) in many ways paints a compelling and optimistic picture of a Middle East that is a source and destination for international investment and a place where important trends are developing, like US partners combating radicalism. These trends are undeniable.

But this strategy document, which is grounded in a peculiar “clash of civilizations” framework, misses the mark by mischaracterizing decades of America’s support for the ideal of basic freedoms and rights in the world, no matter how mixed that support was in policy reality. Trump 2.0’s NSS says America should drop its “misguided experiment with hectoring these nations — especially the Gulf monarchies — into abandoning their traditions and historic forms of government. We should encourage and applaud reform when and where it emerges organically, without trying to impose it from without.”

America’s strategic blunders in the Middle East over the past quarter century do raise important questions about the country’s true commitment to freedom and democracy. The torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq at a time when the Bush administration was promoting the expansion of freedom to fight extremism was an early sign of hypocrisy on the values front. The Obama administration’s mixed and strategically diffident response to the 2011 Arab uprisings and the Biden administration’s organization of the Summit for Democracy just weeks after the Taliban swept back into power in Afghanistan in 2021 also suggest that America may have never really prioritized the moral values component in its Middle East policy. The second term actions of Trump at home and abroad raise additional questions about America’s true commitment to freedom and democracy.

But the main problem with Trump 2.0’s downgrading of values in US foreign policy is that it creates a weak and unstable foundation for whatever successes the administration might want to achieve in the Middle East. A key determinant for long-term success in the region — whether it is in dire situations like Gaza or uncertain places like Syria and Lebanon — is whether the rulers and governments will provide responsive and effective governance that protects the freedoms and rights of the people. America, along with other open societies around the world, offers the model (despite the many flaws in implementation) and potential to build a more stable societal fabric that isolates extremists and protects people from corrupt rulers who do not listen to their own people. That does not mean America should embark on a crusade to impose democracy — but it does mean that America is missing opportunities to keep the conversation open about the sorts of ideals and principles that foster lasting security and prosperity.

The second Trump administration’s approach to foreign policy is a subset of a wider revolutionary approach to governance and policy — one that has already made it one of the least popular presidencies in recent memory, and its actions are producing a backlash. The biggest backlash may be yet to come — the reactions to Trump’s aggressive moves to destroy what remains of America’s moral compass.

Brian Katulis is a Senior Fellow at the Middle East Institute.

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images