Trump’s New World Order

December 12, 2025

💬 Add your voice: Comment On Trail Mix

We ran the numbers so you don’t have to.

The “Three Kings” Worldview

This brief examines the “Tri-Sphere” Theory of Trump’s foreign policy: the idea that he effectively divides the globe into three zones of influence—Europe for Russia, Asia for China, and the Americas for the United States. The goal is clarity — not spin, not panic, not whatever cable news is doing today.

What Supports the Claim

1. Europe as a Transaction, Not an Alliance

Trump has explicitly rejected the collective security foundation of NATO. In February 2024, he stated he would “encourage” Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to allies who didn’t meet spending targets. He views the alliance as a protection racket (“You gotta pay your bills”) rather than a strategic pact. His repeated characterization of Zelensky as “the greatest salesman” and skepticism of Ukraine aid align with a policy of withdrawal, effectively ceding the European security architecture to Russian dominance.

2. The “Insurance Company” View of Asia

The President has signaled that the U.S. security umbrella in Asia is for sale, not guaranteed. He told Bloomberg in July 2024 that “Taiwan should pay us for defense,” comparing the U.S. military to an “insurance company.” He has also claimed Taiwan “took about 100% of our chip business,” framing a strategic partner as an economic rival. Similarly, his administration has pushed for massive increases in “burden-sharing” payments from South Korea (targeting 5% of GDP), treating troop presence as a service for hire rather than a check on Chinese hegemony.

3. The “Fortress Americas” Pivot

The 2025 National Security Strategy reportedly pivots sharply to the Western Hemisphere, reviving “Monroe Doctrine” rhetoric. This is visible in the aggressive use of tariffs (25% threats) against Canada and Mexico to enforce border and drug policies. The administration’s focus is on “controlling our own destiny” in the Americas—pushing out foreign infrastructure (specifically Chinese) and demanding total alignment from neighbors, effectively treating the hemisphere as a proprietary zone of control.

What Challenges the Claim

No brief is complete without friction. The primary challenge to the “Three Kings” theory is that Trump’s actions against China (trade wars, tech restrictions) suggest competition, not cession. He argues that his “pay up” rhetoric actually strengthens alliances by making them solvent. Furthermore, his administration has not formally withdrawn from NATO or ended treaties with Japan/South Korea, maintaining the structure of the old order even while attacking its spirit.

The Breakdown

Known

• Trump said he would encourage Russia to attack “delinquent” NATO allies.
• He demanded Taiwan pay for U.S. defense, likening it to insurance.
• He has imposed or threatened severe tariffs on Canada and Mexico to force policy changes.

Not Known

• Whether he would actually refuse to defend a NATO ally under Article 5 if attacked.
• Whether the “pay up” demands are negotiating tactics or genuine preconditions for defense.
• The specific “red lines” for Chinese expansion in Asia under his doctrine.

Plausible

• The “Three Kings” map is the practical result of his policies, even if not the stated intent.
• He views international relations purely as bilateral business deals, ignoring geopolitical strategy.

---

UPDATE 12/13/2025: The Collision Course (Strategy vs. Law)

Following up on the “Spheres of Influence” and the shifting map: We have an immediate collision. The White House released a strategy document that effectively signals a retreat from Europe, but Congress has simultaneously passed a law forbidding it. This is the friction point to watch.

• The Battle for Europe: While the White House’s new National Security Strategy labels the EU a “competitor,” the newly passed NDAA explicitly prohibits the President from reducing U.S. troops in Europe below 76,000 without Congressional approval—setting up a constitutional showdown. German Marshall Fund
• “Civilizational Erasure”: The specific language in the Trump Administration’s new security doctrine warns that Europe faces “erasure” due to migration and EU regulations, marking a sharp ideological break from NATO traditions and framing allies as ideological threats. The Guardian

---

Observation: The President has the “intent” to redraw the map, but Congress just held onto the pen. Which one holds more weight in 2026?

Sources

• Trump on NATO: “Do whatever the hell they want” (The Guardian)
• Trump Interview: “Taiwan should pay us” (Bloomberg)
• Analysis of Trump’s “Monroe Doctrine” Revival (Responsible Statecraft)

---