United States President, Donald Trump, has a purported good agenda for a new beginning for the people of America. The beginning is ‘Make America Great Again’ (MAGA). In making America great again, Donald Trump adopted an ‘America First’ policy. MAGA is the strategic objective while America First is the tactical policy. The notion of MAGA clearly suggests that there was the time America was great, and the time America lost its greatness. It is the recognition of the loss of US greatness that ignites the quest to MAGA. In this regard, what made America great in the past? It is a truism that the United States was not one of colonialists whose development was enhanced by exploitation of resources in the colonies.  How do we explain the loss of the status of American greatness? And more concernedly, what are the dynamics of MAGA?

            In the same vein, what does ‘America First’ mean and imply? Does this not imply national protectionism? Can American interest prevail over multilateral interest? Put differently, whatever is in the interest of the United States must always take precedence over the interests of other countries in international relations. This is the first implication. ‘America First’ is a reflection of ‘don’t care attitude.’ It is about a holier-than-thou, a better-than-thou attitudinal disposition. This is the path that President Donald Trump is treading currently. It is, indeed, a dangerous new beginning that is threatening global peace and insecurity.

            And perhaps most importantly, MAGA is not in any way different from the concept of ‘strategic autonomy’ in international relations. Strategic autonomy is essentially about self-reliance and not depending on others for survival. Nigeria’s foreign policy is being redefined to reposition Nigeria in global politics on the basis of the diplomacy of 4-Ds. It is against this background that the understanding of Donald Trump’s end of a beginning should be explained and understood in context and that lessons should be drawn for Nigeria’s strategic autonomy.

            Without whiff of doubt, the United States used to be great, and not simply great, but also super great. She is universally acknowledged as a Superpower. The United States is a global economic, industrial, and military, power. It is a recognized terra cognita for democracy and freedoms of all kinds. Consequently, President Trump cannot be faulted for observing that there has been an erosion of US global influence and that there is the need to MAGA, especially in light of current global developments.

One major source of strength of the United States is the global financial system which is American-dominated. In several critical cases, the 1944 Bretton Woods institutions defined global economic policies. In fact, the United States currently influences the policies of the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and other international financial institutions. The United States and its western allies are able to dominate the global financial institutions as a result of the principle of weighted voting in several decision-making processes. And true enough, the United States is often referred to as the policeman of the world.

Besides, following end of World War II, the United States played active parts in Africa’s decolonization efforts. This brought much of Africa’s good will towards the United States. United States was then great in terms of justice and fairness. When the issue of implementation of the 1917 William Balfour Declaration on provision of a Homeland for the Jews and the partitioning of Palestine into Israeli and Arab States arose and the Arabs rejected the partitioning, the United States was the first country to recognize the State of Israel. The United States and the United Kingdom played critical roles to support Israel against the Arabs at the level of the United Nations General Assembly. In all these cases, the United States remained a giant and a source of inspirations to many peoples.

            Then came the Cold War rivalry between the West and the East, between Capitalism and Communism, between the United States in essence and the Soviet Union. The United States provided leadership for the Western allies, thanks to its militaro-industrial complex. No one knew that the United States had developed atomic weapons until the Japanese miscalculated by attacking US Pearl Harbor in the wrong belief that such an attack would prevent the United States from entering into World War II on the side of the Allies. Japan calculated that it would take the Americans, at least, six months before reconstituting its destroyed military arsenal and coming to join the war effort of the Allies. When the Little Man was dropped on Hiroshima and the Fat Man on Nagasaki, the world knew quickly that the United States was not only the primus inter pares but had also arrived on the global stage to engage in the management of global questions.

More interestingly, when the Soviet Union was dismantled following the policies of glasnost and perestroika, capitalism and democracy à la Americana were presented as superior systems to that of Eastern Europe which was led then by the Soviet Union. Since the dismantlement, no one talks about two superpowers anymore but only about the United States as the surviving superpower. The situational reality by then was that whenever the United States sneezes, all other countries quickly catch cold.  

            And perhaps most interestingly, when the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was done in 1949, the western signatories largely depended on the American security umbrella for their defence and security. The United States has, therefore, been partly carrying the financial defence burden of Europe. It is on record that Americans gave economic recovery assistance through the Marshall Plan to Europe. With this, and particularly with the 14 Points of US President Wilson aimed at establishing principles for peace negotiations to end World War I, United States sustained its great power status and got it further enhanced at the end of World War II by acquiring the status of a super power. The United States not only helped to define the attributes of international behavior following end of World War I, but also largely helped in articulating the direction of global politics after World War II. Consequently, there is no disputing the fact that the United States was truly great. American pride was quite justifiable.

            However, the many policies adopted by Donald Trump have completely undermined whatever greatness the United States may want to lay claim to as of today. Donald Trump launched a tariff war on China but does not appear to be able to control the war. When the United States imposed an additional 10% on all imports from China with effect from March 4 and later 20% tariff on all imports from China, the decisions were reciprocated with Chinese announcement of 10-15% tariffs on agricultural and food products imported from the United States.

As noted by Chinese spokesperson, Lou Qinjian, unilateral tariffs violate the rules of World Trade Organisation and also ‘disrupt the security and stability of global industrial and supply chains. More notably, the Chinese believe that ‘instead of issuing threats and using pressure tactics, the US should sit and negotiate on equal footing if there is any dispute or issue because China “will never accept any act of pressuring and threatening.” A stable, sound and sustainable China-US relationship is in the interests of both countries and meets the expectations of the international community.’

Additionally, China put 25 US firms on exports and investments restriction and several American businesses are complaining. Donald Trump did the same thing to Canada and Mexico. Mexico and Canada are similarly giving Donald Trump a tougher time to the extent that the US President has to suspend the application of the tariffs for about 90 days to allow for possible negotiations. In other words, the right of sovereignty applied by Donald Trump other sovereign presidents enjoy the same right. Consequently, President Trump does not have any monopoly of sovereign rights.

            In fact, the exaggeration of President Trump was to the extent that he wants to rename the Gulf of Mexico after the United States. He wants to define the direction and conditions of peace in Ukraine but Russian Putin does not appear to want to play basketball in the mania of the United States. Donald Trump also wants Canada to become the 51^st State of the United States but several notable Canadians have lambasted the US president for the ‘insult.’ Canada has also taken a number of measures in retaliation against US tariffs: imposition of 25% tariffs on non-CUSMA compliant vehicles imported into Canada from the United States, 25% tariffs on non-Canadian and non-Mexican content of CUSMA compliant vehicles imported to Canada from the United States, etc.

The European Union also reacted to the US blanket 25% tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports by imposing counter-tariffs on 28 billion worth of US goods. On March 12, 2025 when US tariffs came into force, the EU regretted the ‘unjustified US 25% tariff on steel and aluminum imports… We are launching SWIFT, proportionate counter measures worth up to 26 billion euros marching the economic impact of the US tariffs.’ It is therefore EU-US tit-for-tat. The EU, along with Canada, are looking at the EU-US financial bonds from which the US is expected to suffer most if Donald Trump does not stop to rethink.

            US placement of tariffs on imported goods into the United States and the reciprocal counter-measures of many trading partners of the United States is nothing more than the protection of the national interest. Donald Trump cannot be blamed for seeking to introduce new standards requiring steel to be melted and poured and aluminum to be melted and cast in North America in order to prevent China ‘from circumventing trade restrictions.’ Reportedly, Donald Trump wants ‘to stop other nations from taking advantage of the United States, bolster domestic production, and bring jobs back to the US economy.’ This is quite good.

            This policy is not only good for the United States but also for all other countries of the world. If ‘America First,’ why not also ‘Nigeria First’? Why should as of 2025 some five countries have an exclusive right to possess veto power in the United Nations Security Council to the detriment of others? Why the permanency of membership of some countries at the UN Security Council? What about the politics of nuclear arsenal? It is wrong to be preaching the gospel of justice and fairness, sovereign equality and political stability, on the one hand, while also promoting injustice and inequality, on the other. It is against this background that Nigeria’s Foreign Minister’s quest for strategic autonomy as an instrument of foreign policy grand strategy is a most welcome development. This is also why lessons from Donald Trump should be learnt.

Today, the world is witnessing a decline in American influence in global politics, essentially as a result of the conduct and management of MAGA and America First policy under President Trump. As observed by Professor Thomas Piketty of the EHESS (Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales) in Paris, ‘the United States is no longer a reliable country. For some, this is nothing new… But the current crisis is new because it challenges the very core of the country’s economic, financial, and political power. The US appears disoriented, led by an unstable and erratic leader with no democratic counterweight.’ Perhaps more importantly, ‘if Trumpists are pursuing such a brutal and desperate policy, it’s because they don’t know how to respond to the country’s economic decline,’ Professor Piketty said (vide lemonde.fr/en/op). Professor Piketty could not have been more correct.

First of all, US policy on China suffers from policy miscalculations. The United States under Donald Trump, both in his first and second coming, often accused the Chinese of intellectual property theft, but without also noting that the Chinese are quietly striving to provide sustainable global leadership without noise-making. China continues to present itself as a Third World country. Even the developed West considers China as belonging to the Second World, whereas China has gone beyond the development limitations of the West.

There is no disputing the fact that, in terms of purchasing power parity, China’s GDP surpassed  that of the United States in 2016 and that it is currently more than 30% higher, with the potential to be 60% higher by 2035. The US Navy used to have an exclusive domination in the South China Sea but the Chinese have been more assertive in the area more than ever before. The Chinese Confucius Institutes are seriously giving a tough challenge to the US Fulbright programs and Hollywood in the area of cultural global influence. In the same vein, Chinese Huawei and Tencent are also challenging American Apple, Google, and Microsoft with their feat in 5G technology, artificial intelligence and quantum computing.

Thus the United States cannot but be rightly said to be on the decline if its leadership roles are being objected to. The United States withdrawal from the Paris Climate Change Agreement during the first tenure of Donald Trump seriously damaged the international image of the United States. Joe Biden’s decision to return to the agreement has not been helped by the re-election of Donald Trump. Whatever vacuum is created only reenergizes China’s strategy of replacing the United States as the new global leader.

            For example, China has come out with a BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) policy which is establishing different trade routes across Africa, Asia, and Europe. The BRI appears to be impacting considerably on Africa and Asia to the chagrin of the United States and the Western allies. This cannot but be a major challenge to the supremacy of the United States both in the short and long term especially that many countries (Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Kenya, etc.) are going along with the Chinese project in the promotion of the objectives of the BRI.

            Apart from China, there is also the issue of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). The BRICS is not, stricto sensu, about wanting to replace per se the United States as world leader. On the contrary, the organization is contesting the mainmise of the United States and the Bretton Woods institutions. The BRICS, in an attempt to stop American domination of the world, is seeking alternative to the ‘exclusive’ use of the US dollar as a global reserve currency. The BRIC is considering an alternative to the US dollar. It is also considering alternatives to the Bretton Woods institutions. This cannot but have lessons for Nigeria.

            Another new beginning by President Trump is the renewed emphasis on anti-semitism which he has resolved to fight tooth and nail. The new anti-semitism policy seeks to sanction any tertiary institutions perceived to be condoning anti-Israel activities in the United States. Donald Trump has threatened to retreat the funding partnerships with universities that play host to anti-semitism. The vehement opposition of the Harvard University is noteworthy. The President of the University, Alan M. Garber, in his open letter to the Members of the Harvard Community on Monday, 14^th April, 2025 said: ‘for three-quarters of a century, the federal government has awarded grants and contracts to Harvard and other universities to help pay for work that, along with investments by the universities themselves, has led to groundbreaking by the universities across a wide range of medical, engineering, and scientific fields.’

            Even though ‘these innovations have made countless people in our country and throughout the world healthier and safer, ‘the federal government has threatened its partnership with several universities, including Harvard, over accusations of anti-semitism on our campuses. These partnerships are among the most productive and beneficial in American history.’  

            More importantly, the Harvard President said the federal government has warned that Harvard must comply if it intends to maintain its ‘financial relationship with the federal government.’ The position of the Harvard is quite clear as well: refusal to accept federal government’s requirements to ‘audit the viewpoints of the student body, faculty, Staff and to reduce the power of certain students, faculty, and administrators. More significantly, he said: ‘we will not accept their proposed agreement’ in the strong belief that ‘no government, regardless of which party is in power, should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.’

            Considering the need to ‘nurture a thriving culture of inquiry’ in the campus, the need to respect free speech and dissent; the need to foster and support a vibrant community that exemplifies respect and embraces differences; as well as the need to ‘comply with students for fair admissions v. Harvard, which ruled that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for universities to make decisions “on the basis of race”, Donald Trump’s new beginning is frontally being challenged.

There is no problem in seeking to fight anti-semitism, but there is a lot of problems when the mania of doing so is also unlawful. Anti-semitism is an issue that ought to be objectively addressed by any US president, but the manner of handling the issue should not be driven by policy remissness and recklessness the way President Trump is going about it. He must open his eyes and ears to see that all insults passed on him are also insults he is receiving on behalf of the good people of America. The international image of the United States is nothing to write home about as of today. Consequently lessons from the dynamics of the decline in US influence in global politics should be worthy of note for Nigerians.