Trump’s Selective Alliances: Restricting Some, Embracing Others
- Luke Thompson
- Jun 9
- 2 min read

American foreign policy has once again been thrust into the spotlight after President Donald Trump’s travel bans target conflict-affected nations.
Showcased as a national security measure, the policy bars entry from countries including Libya, Iran, Somalia, Syria and Yemen - states already plagued by war, instability or frosty relations with the US.
The timing of the ban - not long after Trump’s phone call with Chinese President Xi Jinping - illuminates an increasingly evident contradiction in his administration’s diplomatic strategy: an attempt to both reassert control through seclusion and court relations with global powers like China.

In essence, this contradiction uncovers the clash between Trump’s nationalist rhetoric and his pragmatic demand for international cooperation.
On one hand, Trump’s travel ban communicates firm borders, bolstered security and a retreat from the traditional American identity as a haven for the displaced. On the other, the administration extending an olive branch East marks a desire for diplomatic and economic stability in a highly volatile international system.
China, unlike the countries targeted in the travel ban, is a powerful global player whose influence extends into many of the regions from which the US is now disengaging.
Beijing has invested billions through its Belt and Road initiative in Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia - all regions overlapping significantly with those affected by the ban.
By drawing a curtain across America’s borders, the Trump administration risks handing over not only humanitarian leadership but also geopolitical ground to China, whose foreign policy is increasingly pragmatic and globally engaged.
Furthermore, this approach undermines the coherence of US diplomacy. How can the Trump administration express openness and partnership to Beijing while turning its back on populations faltering under war and authoritarianism?
This diplomatic discrepancy degrades American soft power and raises questions among allies about the loyalty and moral compass of US leadership.
If America wishes to retain its central position on the global playing field, particularly in competition with China, its policies must correspond to both its strategic interests and its professed values.

Internationally, the fallout is already apparent. European leaders have conveyed apprehension over the unilateral nature of the travel ban, and several humanitarian organisations have flagged its potentially disastrous effects on refugee resettlement efforts.
At the same time, China is building its image as a grounding presence in a multipolar world - an image that will appeal to states jaded by American inconsistency.
Trump’s travel ban stands at odds with his broader strategic goals. If the US hopes to successfully navigate the turbulent waters that is its relationship with China, it cannot afford a foreign policy that runs on mixed messages. Global leadership demands cohesion, not contradiction.
Comments