Trump’s agenda: Steering US foreign policy toward a dangerous downturn

President Donald Trump’s Gaza plan appeared this year amid the ongoing war on the Strip, gaining additional momentum following the adoption of UNDC Resolution 2803. While the United States seeks to frame the initiative as a multilateral undertaking, it remains, in essence, an American designed framework centered on a US led transitional administration in Gaza, political, economic, and security in scope, implemented in coordination with a select group of states. Washington occupies the pivotal position in defining the plan’s structural parameters, particularly its security architecture, and retains decisive influence over its strategic direction.

By contrast, Trump’s proposal on Ukraine emerged within the context of the Russian-Ukrainian war that erupted in 2022. It has been advanced primarily as part of a prospective “deal,” and unlike the Gaza plan has not been formalised or adopted as an official policy blueprint. The plan is framed as a bilateral arrangement between the two neighbouring states, with Washington positioned as the key actor responsible for setting the terms of a cease-fire and shaping the post-war landscape. This mirrors the underlying logic of the Gaza plan, while simultaneously sidelining the broader European involvement that has defined support for Ukraine since the outbreak of the war precisely the point that has fueled major Western objections to the US proposal on Ukraine.

In a third context, the US plan on Venezuela operates within a markedly different trajectory from Trump’s Gaza and Ukraine frameworks. It reflects a critical phase in the deterioration of US Venezuelan relations, one that Trump initiated during his first term and is now seeking to reconfigure. The Venezuela plan, unveiled earlier this year, is a unilateral strategy that encapsulates Washington’s approach to Caracas. It relies on maximum economic pressure and intensified sanctions aimed at suffocating President Nicolás Maduro’s government, restoring US leverage over Venezuela’s oil sector, and undermining the influence of rival powers in the country, particularly China.

The US plans across the three regions reveal a distinctly exploitative economic dimension one that forms a central pillar of Trump’s overarching foreign policy approach. In Gaza, the post-war vision advanced by Trump ties reconstruction to an investment-driven environment shaped by US-devised projects and American and international contracting firms, while expecting Arab and global actors, not the United States to shoulder the financial burden. In Ukraine, Trump’s proposal places reconstruction at the heart of a large-scale economic arrangement that would draw $100 billion from frozen Russian assets and another $100 billion from European contributions. The plan envisions substantial returns flowing to the United States as compensation for security guarantees provided during the war. It further outlines the establishment of a joint US–Russian investment entity to operate inside Ukraine, granting Washington a structured economic foothold in the country.

In Venezuela, the economic objective is even more explicit. Possessing the world’s largest proven oil reserves and historically supplying much of its crude to the US—Venezuela stands at the center of Washington’s maximum-pressure strategy. Trump’s plan seeks to sever the flow of Venezuelan oil to key competitors, particularly China, while restoring US dominance over Venezuela’s energy sector and reopening it to American companies. As such, the plan hinges either on toppling the Maduro government or coercing it into compliance, with the goal of reconfiguring the country’s economic landscape in line with US interests.

Beyond their economic exploitation, Trump’s plans for the three regions constitute a blatant violation of international law and a clear departure from the democratic principles the United States has long claimed to champion and uphold.

In Gaza, Trump’s plan represents a profound legal breach and a stark disregard for universally recognised democratic norms. The proposal undermines Palestinian sovereignty by outlining a form of “American trusteeship” through a transitional administration referred to as the “Peace Council”, which effectively transfers governance over Palestinians to a foreign authority. Such an arrangement overrides Palestinian national decision-making on Palestinian soil, making it both politically unacceptable and a direct violation of an inherent and non-derogable right. Moreover, the US plan effectively rewards the occupying power, granting Israel continued presence and security control while enabling further repression of Palestinians. It also absolves the occupying force of its legal obligations. Instead of holding Israel accountable for reconstructing the territory it devastated, an obligation imposed on any occupying power under international humanitarian law, Trump’s framework shifts the burden onto external actors who bear no responsibility for the destruction nor for the war crimes committed in Gaza. The plan deliberately overlooks the political roots of the conflict and instead emphasises a security approach heavily skewed in favor of the occupying power, alongside an economic vision aligned with US interests.

Establishing an “international transitional administration” without clear authorisation from the Palestinian people, conditioning reconstruction on externally crafted security guarantees, and incorporating provisions for forcibly disarming a Palestinian faction all raise serious legal concerns. These issues relate directly to the right of occupied peoples to self-determination and to the established principle prohibiting the imposition of governance or security arrangements on occupied territory without the participation of its population. Furthermore, any formula that resurrects a form of “international trusteeship” or sidelines the Palestinian Authority and existing representative institutions stands in clear contradiction to fundamental democratic standards.

In Ukraine, the plan imposes a framework of “permanent neutrality,” freezes Kyiv’s right to pursue NATO membership, and grants Russia territorial gains in Crimea and parts of Donbas. It further proposes a “general amnesty” for war crimes measures that directly clash with the Ukrainian people’s right to determine their political future. Trump’s proposal effectively mandates territorial concessions to Russia without regard for the position of the Ukrainian government or the will of the Ukrainian public. Such concessions amount to relinquishing sovereign territory, an outcome many European states argue undermines Ukraine’s territorial integrity. This US posture also sets the stage for a clear breach of a foundational customary norm of international law: the prohibition on acquiring territory by force. Several European governments reject Trump’s plan on the grounds that it represents an arbitrary US–Russian arrangement imposed on Ukraine, crafted without meaningful European participation. They contend that the proposal disregards the post–Russian invasion security architecture that has shaped Europe’s strategic landscape since 2022.

UN Resolution 2803: International mandate for America’s plan in Gaza

In Venezuela, President Nicolás Maduro’s government rejects Trump’s so-called “maximum pressure plan,” which aims to reengineer the country’s political system from the outside and destabilise the leadership in Caracas. The Venezuelan authorities accuse the United States of direct interference in the country’s internal affairs and categorically oppose any form of US intervention or guardianship, describing Washington’s proposals as a form of political and economic neo-colonialism. Caracas argues that the US oil and economic sanctions risk triggering a humanitarian catastrophe. In reality, the plan constitutes a blatant encroachment on Venezuelan sovereignty and an attempt to coerce the political system in ways that override international law and the principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs. It stands in open defiance of fundamental democratic norms and international standards governing relations between states.

The evident parallels among Trump’s plans for Gaza, along with the leaks and statements regarding his proposals for Ukraine and Venezuela, reveal a consistent pattern in the current administration’s foreign policy: a model that prioritises US economic interests in these regions over any legal, democratic, or even humanitarian considerations. This approach helps explain the growing chorus of voices warning against the dangerous trajectory of Washington’s external policies.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.