High-Stakes Diplomacy and ‘America First’
Trump’s foreign policy, both in his first term and in his second, remains unconventional, transactional, and polarizing, shaped by his “America First” doctrine. His approach prioritizes U.S. economic and security interests over traditional diplomacy and multilateral alliances, often challenging long-standing global norms.In his second term, Trump has intensified his deal-oriented strategy—tough on allies and unrelenting on adversaries. His “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran aims to block Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Simultaneously, he has intensified efforts to push NATO allies to meet their defense spending commitments, warning European nations that they risk losing U.S. protection against Russian aggression if they fail to contribute their fair share.
Trump has also revived expansionist rhetoric, floating the idea of annexing Greenland, hinting at Canada as a potential 51st state, and stating his intention to retake the Panama Canal if China’s influence isn’t reined in. His tariff threats remain central to reshaping global trade, targeting both allies and adversaries to reduce America’s $918 billion trade deficit.
Meanwhile, on Ukraine, he has dramatically shifted U.S. strategy, engaging Putin directly to secure an end to the war. He has also proposed economic cooperation with Russia and suggested reinstating Moscow in the G7, reversing its 2014 expulsion over Crimea. While supporters see this as a pragmatic realignment, critics warn that it is a risky concession to an aggressive adversary.
Poll data from The Epoch Times indicate overwhelmingly positive sentiment on Trump’s handling of foreign relations, with 81 percent approving—64 percent strongly and 17 percent somewhat. In contrast, 16 percent disapprove (12 percent strongly, 4 percent somewhat), and 3 percent remain neutral, suggesting that while support is high, some readers still have reservations.
NATO Allies and Funding for Ukraine
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), established after World War II to counter Soviet expansion, remains the world’s foremost defensive military alliance. Trump has repeatedly criticized member nations for failing to meet the recommended 2 percent of GDP defense spending threshold, arguing that American taxpayers shoulder an unfair share of the alliance’s collective security burden.Beyond urging allies to meet their spending commitments, Trump maintains that European NATO members should contribute more resources to Ukraine. He estimates that European nations have contributed around $100 billion to Kyiv, while the United States has provided $300 billion. Trump argues that Europe’s NATO allies should increase funding to level the playing field.
“We think it has to equalize,” Trump said on Feb. 21 at the Oval Office. “In other words, they have to come up with more money, because it has a big effect on Europe. It doesn’t have much of an effect on us because we have a big beautiful ocean in between.”
The Epoch Times poll shows broad consensus in favor of NATO increasing support for Ukraine with 88 percent approval, 76 percent strongly and 12 percent somewhat. Opposition stands at 6 percent, while 6 percent remain neutral, reflecting lingering hesitation despite strong overall agreement.
Leveraging Ukraine’s Resources for Reconstruction
Trump has criticized the amount of U.S. taxpayer money spent on Ukraine’s defense since Russia’s invasion three years ago, and says Kyiv should provide something in return.He has framed a potential economic agreement—granting the United States access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals and other resources that are critical for aerospace, defense, and nuclear industries—as a way for Kyiv to repay American aid sent under the previous administration.
Zelenskyy has stressed that any such deal would require U.S. security guarantees, which Kyiv deems vital. Trump, however, has been reluctant to grant such guarantees, saying Europe should take the lead. He has argued that a U.S. presence in Ukraine’s mineral sector would deter Russian aggression, effectively providing “automatic security.”
Talks on the deal appear to have broken down, however, at least temporarily. Zelenskyy traveled to Washington on Feb. 28 to meet with Trump and other members of his administration, leading to a tense exchange in the Oval Office. Afterward, Trump issued a statement saying that he has determined Zelenskyy is not ready for peace “if America is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage.”
Trump added that he wants a peaceful settlement to the war and invited Zelenskyy to return for further talks “when he is ready for peace.”
Direct Negotiations With Putin
Trump’s strategy for ending the Russia–Ukraine war hinges on direct, bilateral talks with Putin, prioritizing a swift resolution over adhering to past U.S. policy or fully involving Ukraine and European partners.Critics argue Trump’s approach risks emboldening Putin, weakening Ukraine’s sovereignty, and sidelining European interests. Supporters, however, see it as a pragmatic, results-driven strategy that plays to Trump’s strengths as an unpredictable negotiator capable of breaking the deadlock.
Approval for Trump’s handling of peace talks with Putin is high at 76 percent, with 54 percent strongly approving and 22 percent somewhat approving. However, 18 percent disapprove, and 6 percent remain neutral, showing a slightly more divided response compared to other policies.
Similarly, Trump’s broader push to rebuild U.S.–Russia relations stands at 77 percent approval (52 percent strong, 25 percent somewhat). Disapproval is 16 percent (11 percent strong, 5 percent somewhat), and 7 percent are neutral, reflecting strong support yet a measure of caution.
Criticism of Zelenskyy, Exclusion From Negotiations
Trump has been outspoken in his criticism of Zelenskyy’s handling of the Russia–Ukraine war, blaming him for prolonging the conflict, questioning his leadership skills, and accusing him of exploiting U.S. aid while failing to deliver results. This stance aligns with Trump’s broader skepticism toward Ukraine’s strategic importance and his push to negotiate directly with Putin, minimizing Kyiv’s role in the process.He has mocked Zelenskyy as “the greatest salesman on Earth” who “walks away with $100 billion” but cannot end the war, previously labeling him a “dictator” before walking back that remark. Trump has also downplayed Zelenskyy’s importance in future peace talks, suggesting Ukraine’s leader has failed to make progress after three years of conflict. In contrast, he has highlighted his own “very good talks” with Putin.
Trump cut shorts talks with Zelenskyy in Washington on Feb. 28 after a tense exchange in the Oval Office, during which Trump accused Zelenskyy of “gambling with World War III.” The Ukrainian leader left the White House without signing the critical minerals deal, the future of which remains uncertain.
Poll results show that while a majority of respondents support Trump’s criticism of Zelenskyy, approval is lower than for other policies. There was 62 percent approval (41 percent strong, 21 percent somewhat), but 27 percent disapproval (19 percent strong, 8 percent somewhat), signaling a more polarizing response compared to other foreign policy positions.
Excluding Zelenskyy from negotiations sees even more division, with approval at 50 percent and disapproval at 32 percent, while 18 percent remain neutral—suggesting more concern about shutting Ukraine out of the peace process.
Write-in Responses: Key Cease-Fire Priorities
Readers also provided write-in comments about what they consider the most crucial factors for cease-fire talks. Chief among them are Ukraine’s NATO aspirations and the security guarantees needed to avert future conflicts. Some blame NATO expansion for triggering the war, insisting on Ukrainian neutrality, while others see NATO membership as essential to deter further Russian aggression.The status of occupied territories also emerged as a major concern. Many argue that Ukraine must regain all land lost since 2014, while others advocate negotiated settlements or referendums for Russian-speaking regions. Some favor a demilitarized buffer zone or international oversight, whereas others warn that conceding territory to Russia sets a dangerous precedent.
Another priority is a comprehensive peace agreement, with calls for binding security commitments, European-led peacekeeping, and robust enforcement to prevent renewed hostilities. Many respondents stress the urgency of halting the war to save lives, though they disagree on whether a cease-fire should be immediate or tied to broader conditions.
Financial accountability and economic stability also weigh heavily. Some want stricter oversight of international aid, repayment schemes, or European-led reconstruction, while others fear corruption and demand the United States stop sending funds. A vocal group suggests ending U.S. aid altogether, saying it prolongs the conflict and diverts resources from domestic needs.
Finally, a smaller but notable group focuses on Ukraine’s political future, calling for new elections to ensure legitimate governance and transparency. These varied responses illustrate the complexity of achieving a lasting cease-fire, given the sharp divides over security, sovereignty, and international involvement.
