It’s often said that "personnel is policy," a maxim that holds especially true for former President Donald Trump’s cabinet selections as he prepares for a potential second term in office. While some may overstate the significance of cabinet appointments, the choices Trump has made for key positions suggest a foreign policy direction that may not align entirely with the "America First" isolationist rhetoric that helped fuel his 2016 campaign. Instead, these picks hint at a continuation—and perhaps even an intensification—of global engagement, particularly in regions like the Middle East, East Asia, and Europe.
The through line connecting Trump’s cabinet nominees, from Marco Rubio and Michael Waltz to Elise Stefanik and Kristi Noem, is not their shared ideological stances on foreign policy, nor their leadership styles, but rather a common trait: loyalty. While figures like former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley have been sidelined, Trump’s picks show a clear preference for those who have consistently backed him, regardless of policy positions. For these loyalists, the focus is not so much on individual policy details but on their unwavering allegiance to Trump.
This dynamic sets the stage for a second term that could look a lot like the first—particularly when it comes to issues like trade and immigration, where Trump has long been vocal. But when it comes to foreign policy, particularly in the areas of defense, international relations, and global security, the new appointments signal potential shifts that may surprise some of Trump’s most fervent isolationist supporters.
Middle East and East Asia: A Proactive Approach
There is little doubt that Trump’s inner circle will continue to support staunch U.S. allies like Israel while taking a confrontational approach to Iran and China. Rubio, Waltz, and Stefanik have all demonstrated a commitment to Israel’s security, and their antagonism toward Iran is well-documented. Similarly, they share concerns about China’s growing global influence and its expansionist activities in the Indo-Pacific region.
This shared ideology suggests that a second Trump administration may focus more on proactive measures to safeguard U.S. interests in both the Middle East and East Asia. Though these appointees may not always agree on every detail, the consensus is clear: the U.S. must maintain a dominant presence in these regions, partly because these positions are aligned with the priorities of Trump’s Republican base, which continues to see global engagement as essential for maintaining American power and influence.
Europe and Ukraine: A More Complicated Picture
The most contentious question for Trump’s second term, however, may revolve around Europe, particularly in relation to Ukraine and NATO. While the Trump administration is unlikely to abandon its support for Israel or retreat from the Middle East, the war in Ukraine presents a more complicated challenge. The conflict, now in its third year, is far from a simple regional dispute, and Trump’s cabinet picks, particularly those with strong national security backgrounds, have had to balance between their historical skepticism of Russian aggression and their growing concerns about U.S. involvement in the conflict.
At the outset of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Marco Rubio positioned himself as a firm supporter of Kyiv, echoing the widespread condemnation of Russia’s aggression. However, as the war has dragged on, Rubio’s position has softened. In a September 2024 interview with NBC, he argued that continuing U.S. aid to Ukraine was effectively propping up a "stalemate war" and advocated for a negotiated settlement that could end hostilities in a way that was favorable to Ukraine—but without further escalating the conflict.
Michael Waltz, a former Green Beret and military strategist, has voiced similar concerns. While he supports Ukraine’s right to defend itself, he has questioned the long-term U.S. commitment to Europe, which he argues is detracting from America’s "forever-stalled pivot to Asia." His recent remarks suggest that the Trump administration will seek to scale back America’s role in the Ukraine conflict by applying economic and military pressure on Russia, particularly through energy sanctions and increased U.S. energy exports to reduce Europe’s reliance on Russian fossil fuels.
The Trump Doctrine on Ukraine
Waltz’s proposed strategy for ending the war in Ukraine centers around three key steps. First, he advocates for robust energy sanctions against Russia and its business partners, followed by an increase in U.S. liquid natural gas exports to undercut the Kremlin’s financial base. Finally, Waltz emphasizes the need for greater military support for Ukraine—especially in terms of long-range weaponry—while pressuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to negotiate with Moscow.
While these strategies may sound appealing, their effectiveness remains uncertain. The Biden administration hesitated to implement a secondary sanctions regime against countries like China and India for fear of undermining global energy markets. Moreover, pushing for a negotiated settlement could prove difficult, as both Russia and Ukraine remain deeply entrenched in the conflict, with little sign of either side being willing to accept a peace agreement under current conditions.
Despite these challenges, Trump’s personnel choices suggest a willingness to pursue a more confrontational approach, even if it involves heightened risks. His loyalists, including Waltz and Rubio, have repeatedly underscored the importance of deterring Russia and China, even if that means committing more resources to global security.
The Tension Between Isolationism and Global Engagement
For many of Trump’s supporters who hoped for a more isolationist foreign policy in his second term, these cabinet picks come as a disappointment. Some, like Elon Musk, have criticized U.S. involvement in the Ukraine conflict, while others—such as Silicon Valley investor David Sachs—have pushed for a diplomatic solution that would prioritize territorial concessions to Russia.
However, Trump’s foreign policy is not as simple as the binary choice between interventionism and retreat. Instead, his appointees are signaling that he is open to pursuing a more pragmatic, transactional approach to international relations—one that balances American interests with global realities. The result may be a more active U.S. role in foreign affairs than many of his most fervent supporters anticipated.
In short, the personnel Trump has chosen for key foreign policy positions suggest that his second term may not be a period of retrenchment, as some had hoped, but rather a recalibration of America’s global role, driven by a desire to secure U.S. interests and confront challenges from adversaries like Russia and China. Whether that means greater military engagement or a more sophisticated diplomatic strategy, one thing is clear: Trump's administration will be defined by loyalty, not just ideology, and his loyalists are preparing for a second term that could reshape America’s position on the world stage.
