by Giulia Shaughnessy
America First or America Alone? The Hollowing Out of the U.S. Government in Trump’s Second Term
The image was created using ChatGPT.
As President Trump passes the 100-day mark of his second term, a sobering pattern has come into focus: the systematic hollowing out of the U.S. government – both domestically and internationally. From the gutting of federal agencies to the withdrawal from global institutions, the administration’s actions reflect not a coherent strategic doctrine, but an ideological purge of institutions that once underpinned American strength.
Since his return to office in January 2025, Trump has hit the ground running, hastily firing thousands government workers, dismantling entire departments, and backing out of longstanding international alliances. He has imposed sweeping tariffs and issued the largest number of executive orders by any modern president in their first 100 days.
These moves are framed as efficiency measures or ideological necessities, but the reality is a rapid erosion of American influence and capacity both at home and abroad. What is often missed in public discussion is that Trump appears not to understand why many of the institutions he is dismantling existed in the first place. He treats them as relics of liberal overreach or as obstacles to a stronger, more self-sufficient America. In reality, these institutions have long served as foundations of U.S. power, domestic stability, and international credibility, and their destruction is only serving to hasten the U.S.’s decline.
To assess this trajectory, three case studies are examined: education, foreign aid, and environmental governance. Each illustrates a distinct vector of retreat, and all reflect the broader erosion of state capacity and international credibility under Trump’s second term.
Since his return to office in January 2025, Trump has hit the ground running, hastily firing thousands government workers, dismantling entire departments, and backing out of longstanding international alliances. He has imposed sweeping tariffs and issued the largest number of executive orders by any modern president in their first 100 days.
These moves are framed as efficiency measures or ideological necessities, but the reality is a rapid erosion of American influence and capacity both at home and abroad. What is often missed in public discussion is that Trump appears not to understand why many of the institutions he is dismantling existed in the first place. He treats them as relics of liberal overreach or as obstacles to a stronger, more self-sufficient America. In reality, these institutions have long served as foundations of U.S. power, domestic stability, and international credibility, and their destruction is only serving to hasten the U.S.’s decline.
To assess this trajectory, three case studies are examined: education, foreign aid, and environmental governance. Each illustrates a distinct vector of retreat, and all reflect the broader erosion of state capacity and international credibility under Trump’s second term.
1. Education: Fragmentation and Decline
The retreat in education is happening on two fronts: in K–12 schools and in higher education institutions.
A. K–12 Schools
In March of 2025, Trump signed an executive order to begin dismantling the U.S. Department of Education. While full abolition of the department requires congressional approval, the administration has already slashed the department’s workforce and returned many federal powers to the states.
The goal is to place full control of the education of America’s youth back in the hands of individual states, eliminating nationwide standards that have been in place for decades. This not only threatens the comprehensiveness and quality of the educational system, but also the civil rights protections and support for marginalized students which have been central in the activities of the Department of Education. The loss of federal data collection and enforcement mechanisms risks exacerbating disparities and reducing accountability nationwide.
While education has traditionally been a state responsibility, federal involvement – particularly in guaranteeing civil rights, funding for disadvantaged schools, and setting nationwide benchmarks – has been a powerful unifying force. It has helped ensure that, regardless of their geographic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds, American children have at least a baseline of shared civic knowledge and opportunity. This rollback is also opening the door to ideologically motivated initiatives such as reintroducing state-sponsored prayer in public schools, a policy long barred by the Supreme Court but now embraced by the MAGA base. Dismantling this common foundation will likely result in a system where students in different states are taught vastly different things, further undermining national cohesion. This is particularly worrying in a context where calls for secession are already becoming commonplace.
B. Universities
Meanwhile, American universities are under direct pressure from the administration. Schools are being given ultimatums: comply with new federal rules – especially those targeting DEI programs and definitions of antisemitism – or lose billions of dollars in funding for everything from cancer research to defense technology.
The effect has been chilling: universities are scaling back initiatives, postponing international partnerships, and preemptively censoring controversial academic work to avoid political scrutiny. Restrictions on research partnerships and visa limits for international students are forcing many to leave the country, while others are deciding not to come at all. This loss of talent, paired with decreased funding, will inevitably reduce America’s leadership in science, innovation, and global intellectual life.
What is being lost is not just research output, but also “science diplomacy” – the use of international academic collaboration as a tool of soft power. For decades, the U.S. has been a magnet for the world’s top talent. But with the loss of academic freedom and credibility, that magnetism is weakened. This will have consequences not just for universities, but for the U.S.’s economy, national security, and global influence.
2. Foreign Aid and International Organizations: The Collapse of Soft Power
The second major front of retreat for the Trump administration is in foreign aid and international engagement, where the pullback has been particularly abrupt and severe. In January 2025, the administration announced a 90% reduction in USAID foreign aid contracts, as part of a broader $60 billion cut to U.S. foreign assistance. It also withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), and the World Health Organization (WHO). Hundreds of other multilateral organizations and treaties are now under review.
The stated rationale of these actions is in service of cost-cutting and a renewed focus on domestic priorities. Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) prominently displays the “savings” from cutting foreign aid on its website. This logic is dangerously short-sighted. Foreign aid is not a charitable donation, it is a strategic investment. Programs that support women’s health in Afghanistan and fund clean water infrastructure in sub-Saharan Africa do not only save human lives, they also promote American ideals and extend U.S. influence abroad. U.S. aid helps stabilize fragile regions, counterbalance rivals like China, and prevent crises that can lead to migration waves, pandemics, and security threats.
By stepping back, the U.S. is saving a few meager dollars – U.S. foreign aid accounts for less than 1% of the federal budget – to forfeit its influence abroad. Allies are losing trust, adversaries are exploiting the vacuum, and American credibility is being eroded across the board. The long-term damage to U.S. soft power may take decades to repair, if it can be repaired at all.
3. The Environment: Surrendering the Future
The third area of retreat is environmental policy – a domain often overlooked in geopolitical analysis, but one that has far-reaching implications for U.S. power. To nobody’s surprise, Trump began his war on environmentalism and sustainability as soon as he came back into power. On his first day in office, Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement and declared a “national energy emergency”, placing fossil fuel production at the center of national policy. He canceled federal subsidies for electric vehicles, slashed tax credits for solar and wind energy, and opened new federal lands for oil and gas drilling.
The Environment Protection Agency (EPA), now restructured under Trump’s leadership, has launched its largest-ever deregulatory effort, targeting everything from power plant emissions to vehicle standards and water protections. The administration is reportedly considering revoking the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases altogether. At the same time, climate science funding is being eliminated, climate information is being scrubbed from federal websites, and scientific advisory panels are being disbanded.
The consequences for the environment are staggering, but the economic and political consequences should also not be forgotten. U.S. industries now risk being left behind in the global clean energy transition. As other nations invest in green technologies, American firms will face higher tariffs, lose market share, and be saddled with stranded fossil fuel assets. Politically, the U.S. is surrendering its leadership in sustainable innovation – a title which will be eagerly claimed by China and the European Union.
This is not a theoretical risk; it is already happening. While the U.S. retreats, other global powers are entrenching climate action as a core element of their strategic and economic agendas. The European Union, despite some political turbulence and increased pushback from voters and businesses, continues to expand its renewable energy capacity and invest in climate infrastructure. In 2023, renewables made up 46% of total EU energy production, and by mid-2024, that figure rose to a record 50% of electricity generation. Moreover, the European Commission has reinforced its long-term commitment through additional investments, including an €86 million injection into climate projects as part of a €2.3 billion strategy running through 2027. These structural moves point to a sustained trajectory toward climate goals, even if the political narrative is more cautious.
The situation in emerging economies is more complex but still challenges the notion that the U.S. is simply aligning with broader global disengagement. China, while still the world’s largest polluter, is simultaneously the global leader in clean energy deployment. In 2024 alone, it added a record 277 GW of new solar capacity—65% of all global additions that year—and wind and solar together accounted for 83% of its new power capacity. A further $85 billion was invested in grid modernization to accommodate this shift. These figures are not merely symbolic; they reflect a strategic transformation of China’s energy infrastructure and supply chains. Other emerging economies remain uneven in their progress, but the falling cost of renewables and improved access to international financing suggest that long-term trends are moving in the direction of cleaner energy, not away from it.
Despite political headwinds, both the EU and China have embedded the energy transition into long-term strategic frameworks that are unlikely to be derailed by short-term pressures. For European leaders, climate action is increasingly framed as both an economic imperative and a civilizational value, while for China, clean energy is not only a domestic necessity but also a geopolitical tool to secure global industrial dominance. In both cases, the transition is seen as a source of strength, not a liability. The United States, by contrast, once had a roadmap for clean energy leadership, but that trajectory has been effectively dismantled. What remains is political rhetoric untethered from meaningful investment or institutional continuity. As others forge ahead, the U.S. risks ceding both economic leadership and moral authority in one of the defining challenges of the 21st century.
Conclusion: Retreat Without Strategy
The above are just three points of retreat, and there are many others that equally deserve attention: the loss of civil service expertise, the erosion of public trust, the weakening of alliances. However, even by looking only at these three instances, the consequences are clear. Domestically, public discontent is rising. After 100 days Trump’s approval rating hovers around 40% - the lowest of any newly inaugurated president in modern history. Even Trump’s most ardent followers did not envision, nor do they support, a wholesale dismantling of the American state. Yet that is precisely what is underway: tariffs are crippling industries, court decisions are being ignored, congressionally approved agencies are being hastily dismantled, and U.S. residents and citizens are being illegally deported.
Internationally, the cumulative effect is a diminished U.S. role in shaping the global order. America’s status, reputation, and relevance are declining. The nation is becoming more isolated, more reactive, and less capable of projecting its values or protecting its interests.
So, to return to the opening question: is this America First or America Alone? The answer is increasingly clear: by hollowing out its key institutions, ideals, and international partnerships, the United States is no longer leading the world – it is leaving it. At its own peril, it is choosing to walk alone.
The retreat in education is happening on two fronts: in K–12 schools and in higher education institutions.
A. K–12 Schools
In March of 2025, Trump signed an executive order to begin dismantling the U.S. Department of Education. While full abolition of the department requires congressional approval, the administration has already slashed the department’s workforce and returned many federal powers to the states.
The goal is to place full control of the education of America’s youth back in the hands of individual states, eliminating nationwide standards that have been in place for decades. This not only threatens the comprehensiveness and quality of the educational system, but also the civil rights protections and support for marginalized students which have been central in the activities of the Department of Education. The loss of federal data collection and enforcement mechanisms risks exacerbating disparities and reducing accountability nationwide.
While education has traditionally been a state responsibility, federal involvement – particularly in guaranteeing civil rights, funding for disadvantaged schools, and setting nationwide benchmarks – has been a powerful unifying force. It has helped ensure that, regardless of their geographic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds, American children have at least a baseline of shared civic knowledge and opportunity. This rollback is also opening the door to ideologically motivated initiatives such as reintroducing state-sponsored prayer in public schools, a policy long barred by the Supreme Court but now embraced by the MAGA base. Dismantling this common foundation will likely result in a system where students in different states are taught vastly different things, further undermining national cohesion. This is particularly worrying in a context where calls for secession are already becoming commonplace.
B. Universities
Meanwhile, American universities are under direct pressure from the administration. Schools are being given ultimatums: comply with new federal rules – especially those targeting DEI programs and definitions of antisemitism – or lose billions of dollars in funding for everything from cancer research to defense technology.
The effect has been chilling: universities are scaling back initiatives, postponing international partnerships, and preemptively censoring controversial academic work to avoid political scrutiny. Restrictions on research partnerships and visa limits for international students are forcing many to leave the country, while others are deciding not to come at all. This loss of talent, paired with decreased funding, will inevitably reduce America’s leadership in science, innovation, and global intellectual life.
What is being lost is not just research output, but also “science diplomacy” – the use of international academic collaboration as a tool of soft power. For decades, the U.S. has been a magnet for the world’s top talent. But with the loss of academic freedom and credibility, that magnetism is weakened. This will have consequences not just for universities, but for the U.S.’s economy, national security, and global influence.
2. Foreign Aid and International Organizations: The Collapse of Soft Power
The second major front of retreat for the Trump administration is in foreign aid and international engagement, where the pullback has been particularly abrupt and severe. In January 2025, the administration announced a 90% reduction in USAID foreign aid contracts, as part of a broader $60 billion cut to U.S. foreign assistance. It also withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), and the World Health Organization (WHO). Hundreds of other multilateral organizations and treaties are now under review.
The stated rationale of these actions is in service of cost-cutting and a renewed focus on domestic priorities. Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) prominently displays the “savings” from cutting foreign aid on its website. This logic is dangerously short-sighted. Foreign aid is not a charitable donation, it is a strategic investment. Programs that support women’s health in Afghanistan and fund clean water infrastructure in sub-Saharan Africa do not only save human lives, they also promote American ideals and extend U.S. influence abroad. U.S. aid helps stabilize fragile regions, counterbalance rivals like China, and prevent crises that can lead to migration waves, pandemics, and security threats.
By stepping back, the U.S. is saving a few meager dollars – U.S. foreign aid accounts for less than 1% of the federal budget – to forfeit its influence abroad. Allies are losing trust, adversaries are exploiting the vacuum, and American credibility is being eroded across the board. The long-term damage to U.S. soft power may take decades to repair, if it can be repaired at all.
3. The Environment: Surrendering the Future
The third area of retreat is environmental policy – a domain often overlooked in geopolitical analysis, but one that has far-reaching implications for U.S. power. To nobody’s surprise, Trump began his war on environmentalism and sustainability as soon as he came back into power. On his first day in office, Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement and declared a “national energy emergency”, placing fossil fuel production at the center of national policy. He canceled federal subsidies for electric vehicles, slashed tax credits for solar and wind energy, and opened new federal lands for oil and gas drilling.
The Environment Protection Agency (EPA), now restructured under Trump’s leadership, has launched its largest-ever deregulatory effort, targeting everything from power plant emissions to vehicle standards and water protections. The administration is reportedly considering revoking the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases altogether. At the same time, climate science funding is being eliminated, climate information is being scrubbed from federal websites, and scientific advisory panels are being disbanded.
The consequences for the environment are staggering, but the economic and political consequences should also not be forgotten. U.S. industries now risk being left behind in the global clean energy transition. As other nations invest in green technologies, American firms will face higher tariffs, lose market share, and be saddled with stranded fossil fuel assets. Politically, the U.S. is surrendering its leadership in sustainable innovation – a title which will be eagerly claimed by China and the European Union.
This is not a theoretical risk; it is already happening. While the U.S. retreats, other global powers are entrenching climate action as a core element of their strategic and economic agendas. The European Union, despite some political turbulence and increased pushback from voters and businesses, continues to expand its renewable energy capacity and invest in climate infrastructure. In 2023, renewables made up 46% of total EU energy production, and by mid-2024, that figure rose to a record 50% of electricity generation. Moreover, the European Commission has reinforced its long-term commitment through additional investments, including an €86 million injection into climate projects as part of a €2.3 billion strategy running through 2027. These structural moves point to a sustained trajectory toward climate goals, even if the political narrative is more cautious.
The situation in emerging economies is more complex but still challenges the notion that the U.S. is simply aligning with broader global disengagement. China, while still the world’s largest polluter, is simultaneously the global leader in clean energy deployment. In 2024 alone, it added a record 277 GW of new solar capacity—65% of all global additions that year—and wind and solar together accounted for 83% of its new power capacity. A further $85 billion was invested in grid modernization to accommodate this shift. These figures are not merely symbolic; they reflect a strategic transformation of China’s energy infrastructure and supply chains. Other emerging economies remain uneven in their progress, but the falling cost of renewables and improved access to international financing suggest that long-term trends are moving in the direction of cleaner energy, not away from it.
Despite political headwinds, both the EU and China have embedded the energy transition into long-term strategic frameworks that are unlikely to be derailed by short-term pressures. For European leaders, climate action is increasingly framed as both an economic imperative and a civilizational value, while for China, clean energy is not only a domestic necessity but also a geopolitical tool to secure global industrial dominance. In both cases, the transition is seen as a source of strength, not a liability. The United States, by contrast, once had a roadmap for clean energy leadership, but that trajectory has been effectively dismantled. What remains is political rhetoric untethered from meaningful investment or institutional continuity. As others forge ahead, the U.S. risks ceding both economic leadership and moral authority in one of the defining challenges of the 21st century.
Conclusion: Retreat Without Strategy
The above are just three points of retreat, and there are many others that equally deserve attention: the loss of civil service expertise, the erosion of public trust, the weakening of alliances. However, even by looking only at these three instances, the consequences are clear. Domestically, public discontent is rising. After 100 days Trump’s approval rating hovers around 40% - the lowest of any newly inaugurated president in modern history. Even Trump’s most ardent followers did not envision, nor do they support, a wholesale dismantling of the American state. Yet that is precisely what is underway: tariffs are crippling industries, court decisions are being ignored, congressionally approved agencies are being hastily dismantled, and U.S. residents and citizens are being illegally deported.
Internationally, the cumulative effect is a diminished U.S. role in shaping the global order. America’s status, reputation, and relevance are declining. The nation is becoming more isolated, more reactive, and less capable of projecting its values or protecting its interests.
So, to return to the opening question: is this America First or America Alone? The answer is increasingly clear: by hollowing out its key institutions, ideals, and international partnerships, the United States is no longer leading the world – it is leaving it. At its own peril, it is choosing to walk alone.
The opinions expressed in this article are of the author alone. The Spykman Center provides a neutral and non-partisan platform to learn how to make geopolitical analysis. It acknowledges how diverse perspectives impact geopolitical analyses, without necessarily endorsing them.