In the ever-evolving landscape of global politics, US President Donald Trump’s alliances have been as fluid as the tides. Once seen as a key player with powerful figures like Elon Musk and Vladimir Putin, a closer look reveals a narrative of shifting relationships, with some former allies drifting away while new partnerships, such as with Qatar, emerge. This dynamic highlights Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy, prioritising national interests and economic benefits over traditional ideological alignments. The relationship between Donald Trump and Elon Musk, initially marked by camaraderie and shared populist appeals, has shown signs of strain. While Musk served in an advisory capacity in Trump’s administration through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), recent reports suggest a cooling of their political bond. Musk’s departure from his government cost-cutting initiative, coupled with his public criticisms of certain Trump administration policies—such as the “massive spending bill”—indicate a growing divergence. Though Trump has publicly stated that Musk is “not really leaving” and will remain an adviser, the billionaire’s focus appears to be shifting back to his business empire, particularly as Tesla navigates challenging market conditions. The initial alignment, perhaps fuelled by a mutual disruptive ethos, has given way to a more pragmatic distance. Similarly, Donald Trump’s complex relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin has undergone notable shifts. While Trump frequently expressed admiration for Putin during his presidency and maintained a cordial public demeanour, recent developments suggest a fraying of this perceived bond. In the context of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, Trump has become increasingly critical of Putin’s actions, calling him “absolutely CRAZY!” and expressing disappointment over the escalation of violence. While still emphasising his ability to broker a peace deal and threatening further sanctions, this rhetoric marks a departure from the largely deferential tone of his earlier interactions. The ongoing war has forced a recalibration of Trump’s public stance, even as his underlying “America First” philosophy continues to shape his approach to international conflicts. The relationship between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, once famously close and ideologically aligned, has experienced significant strain and, in some key areas, a noticeable deterioration. While both leaders shared a strong conservative and nationalist bent, and Trump’s administration delivered several major policy wins for Israel (e.g., moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, recognising Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and brokering the Abraham Accords), a transactional approach and personal grievances have led to friction. A significant and deeply personal rift for Trump came in 2020 when Netanyahu publicly congratulated Joe Biden on his election victory. Trump, who continues to dispute the election results, viewed this as a profound betrayal, reportedly stating, “The first person that congratulated [Biden] was Bibi Netanyahu, the man that I did more for than any other person I dealt with. He has made a terrible mistake.” Since the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks and the subsequent war in Gaza, Trump has expressed increasing frustration with Netanyahu’s handling of the conflict. While initially supportive, Trump has reportedly grown “fed up” with Netanyahu’s resistance to American directives and the prolonged nature of the war. Trump appears to desire a quick, decisive win that he can claim as his own, which clashes with Netanyahu’s stated goal of completely dismantling Hamas and his government’s maximalist war aims. Trump has pushed for humanitarian access and de-escalation in Gaza, backing new aid delivery systems. Netanyahu, on the other hand, has remained primarily committed to a hardline military campaign, often downplaying humanitarian concerns and the need for immediate ceasefires, which creates a divergence from Trump’s desire for a swift resolution. A clear symbol of the fraying relationship was Trump’s recent Middle East tour, which included visits to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE but conspicuously omitted Israel, despite Israeli lobbying. This is a stark contrast to his past visits and underscores a shift in priorities. While the India-US relationship has generally strengthened over the past two decades, characterised by growing strategic convergence, Donald Trump’s “America First” approach and transactional diplomacy have introduced points of friction, particularly concerning trade. Trump has consistently criticised India for its high tariffs on American goods, even famously calling India the “tariff king” and a “big abuser” in global trade. This rhetoric is a direct consequence of his focus on trade deficits and what he perceives as unfair trade practices. Trump has advocated for and, in some cases, imposed “reciprocal tariffs,” meaning the US would charge the same tariff rates on imports from other countries as those nations impose on US exports. This has led to specific tariffs on Indian goods, even if temporarily paused for negotiations. The Trump administration is also likely to continue pushing India to reduce trade barriers and tariffs in various sectors, including agriculture, automobiles, and alcoholic beverages. Also, Trump’s repeated public statements about mediating the “ceasefire” between India and Pakistan this month have been a significant source of diplomatic friction. Indian officials have consistently maintained that this was a bilateral issue and rejected any third-party intervention. These claims have been seen in India as an attempt to undermine its diplomatic position. Trump’s stricter immigration policies, including threats of higher tariffs on BRICS nations and increased deportations, can impact the Indian diaspora in the US and create friction in people-to-people ties. Europe and NATO Trump’s relationship with Europe has been marked by significant tension and a clear divergence from decades of established transatlantic cooperation. His “America First” policy directly challenges the bedrock principles of the post-World War II international order, leading to a palpable sense of unease and, at times, open frustration among European leaders. Trump has consistently and vociferously criticised European NATO members for not meeting their defence spending commitments (2% of GDP). He has threatened to withdraw US troops from Europe or even pull the United States out of NATO altogether if allies didn’t increase their contributions, questioning the very mutual defence clause (Article 5) of the alliance. Beyond spending, Trump’s overall disdain for multilateral institutions and his sometimes admiring tone towards Vladimir Putin have caused deep concern in Europe, particularly among Eastern European states bordering Russia. His approach has been seen as weakening the collective security framework that has protected Europe for decades. Trump has viewed the European Union as a protectionist entity that unfairly took advantage of the US. He imposed tariffs on steel and aluminium imports from the EU, citing national security concerns, which was met with retaliatory tariffs from the EU on American goods. He has also threatened significant tariffs on European automobiles, a major concern for Germany’s powerful auto industry. Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement on climate change was met with widespread condemnation and disappointment across Europe, where climate action is a high priority. European leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the accord and intensified their own climate policies. The US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, despite European efforts to salvage it, also created a major rift. European nations largely viewed the deal as crucial for preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons and saw the US withdrawal as destabilising. Trump’s administration actively undermined the World Trade Organization (WTO) by blocking appointments to its appellate body, effectively paralysing its dispute settlement mechanism. Members of Trump’s administration have sometimes publicly weighed in on European elections and policies, breaking diplomatic norms and further irritating European governments. Trump openly supported Brexit and even suggested other countries should leave the EU. Finding new friends, particularly in Middle East As certain old alliances have waned or become more nuanced, Trump has actively sought and cultivated new partnerships, often driven by economic opportunities and strategic interests. Qatar stands out as a prime example of such an emerging alliance. During a recent Middle East tour, Trump underscored a significant pivot in US strategy, prioritising economic deals and investments with wealthy Gulf states. Pentagon also announced on May 21 that it had officially accepted the luxury jet previously used by the Qatari royal family, a gift announced ahead of Trump’s visit to the Middle East. From May 13 to 16, Trump undertook his first major international trip of his second term, visiting Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. He was joined by a Republican delegation and several business chief executives, including senior adviser Elon Musk. The four-day tour primarily focused on securing business deals and investments in the United States, which Trump claimed could reach as high as $4 trillion, as well as lifting sanctions on the transitional government of Syria. Trump met with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, the first time that the leaders had met since a meeting was convened between Bill Clinton and Hafez al-Assad in Geneva in 2000, and urged him to join the Abraham Accords. The United States announced over US$243 billion in deals with Qatar, including a US$1 billion defence agreement with Raytheon for Qatari counter-drone capabilities, a US$2 billion contract with General Atomics for MQ-9B unmanned aerial vehicles, and US$38 billion for Al Udeid Air Base. Trump later attended a state dinner at Lusail Palace, where he appealed to Qatar to improve Iran–United States relations. When Trump arrived in Abu Dhabi on May 15, he became the second serving US president to visit the country. He toured the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque with Khaled bin Mohamed Al Nahyan. The United Arab Emirates awarded Trump the Order of Zayed, the country’s highest civil decoration. During the visit, the United States Department of Commerce announced a deal with the Emirates and Emirati artificial intelligence firm G42 to establish the largest data centre for artificial intelligence outside of the United States in Abu Dhabi. This burgeoning relationship with Gulf nations highlights several key aspects of Trump’s foreign policy. It demonstrates his clear preference for “the art of the deal” over traditional diplomatic engagements. The focus on massive economic commitments, job creation in the US, and strategic investments aligns perfectly with his “America First” agenda. It signals a recalibration of US policy in the Middle East, moving away from an exclusive focus on long-standing security alliances towards a more transactional approach that seeks immediate and tangible benefits. Qatar, in particular, seems to have skillfully leveraged its position as a regional mediator and financial powerhouse, aligning its interests with Trump’s transactional diplomacy to secure strategic partnerships and enhance its global standing. The deepening ties with Qatar reflect a foreign policy where economic incentives and pragmatic gains are increasingly at the forefront of US engagement. Trump has emphasised large economic agreements and investments with wealthy Gulf states, viewing them as key partners for trade and stability in the region. The Abraham Accords, brokered during his first term, also highlight this transactional approach to regional diplomacy. Under the Trump administration, “closest allies” are often defined less by long-standing diplomatic traditions and more by shared ideological alignment, economic benefits, and a willingness to align with US strategic interests on a transactional basis. (With agency inputs)