Recently, President Trump delivered a pointed address at the United Nations, where he critiqued Europe for its liberal immigration policies, claiming they could lead to the continent’s downfall. He contrasted this with his administration’s record, boasting about achieving a remarkable 5 percent reduction in illegal entries compared to levels observed under President Biden.
Despite the undeniable success of his policies in reducing illegal immigration, Trump faced backlash from European leaders who maintained that they should dictate U.S. immigration policies. Many world leaders not only dismissed their criticisms but also insisted on reversing U.S. immigration policies, advocating for the legalization of approximately 20 million undocumented immigrants. Such global responses illustrate a broader sentiment that foreign nations ought to have a say in American domestic matters, including immigration policy.
On the very first day of his administration in January 2017, Trump unceremoniously withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a multi-nation trade plague he denounced as detrimental to American workers while disproportionately benefiting special interests.
He asserted that his administration would prioritize the financial welfare of Americans during trade negotiations, striving to forge fair and mutually beneficial agreements. This led to a preference for bilateral discussions over cumbersome multilateral deals.
Critics worldwide rebuked him for supposedly undermining global trade; however, his departure from the TPP effectively brought the agreement to a screeching halt. Throughout his campaign, Trump had been blunt, labeling the TPP as “another disaster orchestrated by special interests” and a “continuous assault on our country.”
Throughout his first term, Trump faced a wave of criticism for withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO). Detractors claimed this move compromised the organization’s credibility and reduced accountability among its member states.
In defense, Trump asserted that the WHO had mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic’s onset in Wuhan, demonstrated a bias toward China, and lacked true independence from political influence. He further argued that the organization expected disproportionately high financial contributions from the U.S. compared to its treatment of China, a nation considerably larger in population.
The uproar surrounding global health policies persisted into 2025 when RFK Jr. called for the U.S. to reject new international health accords, branding the WHO as “moribund.” In May, as 124 countries voted in favor of the WHO Pandemic Accord—with only 11 abstentions—RFK Jr. encouraged states to dismiss it. By September, he rebuked a UN declaration on non-communicable diseases, proclaiming that the United States would “walk away” from the agreement.
On May 8, 2018, the United States exited the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal. Trump argued that this agreement allowed Iran to continue its nuclear ambitions. While many global leaders condemned this act for reducing international safety, Trump maintained that a nuclear-capable Iran posed a far greater threat.
In June 2017, Trump also withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement, claiming it imposed unfair constraints on the American economy. Leaders worldwide expressed concern that this decision would embolden other nations to flout compliance, but Trump insisted it was “the latest example of Washington agreeing to disadvantageous terms that benefit others at our expense.”
He asserted that adherence to the agreement could potentially result in 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 and unfairly granted the world’s largest polluter, China, the green light to increase emissions while pressuring the U.S. and Europe to curtail theirs.
Biden’s administration re-joined the agreement in 2021, only for Trump to denounce it again in 2025, dubbing it “the unfair, one-sided Paris climate accord rip-off” and reinforcing his stance that the U.S. would not compromise its industries while China polluted without consequence.
Tariffs also became a contentious point of debate, with many countries expressing discontent over Trump’s prioritization of American interests. Concerns were raised that elevated tariffs would provoke reciprocal measures from other nations. However, it’s essential to recognize that every nation has the autonomy to implement its own trade policies; Trump did not compel any nation to act against its better judgment.
Further, economists both domestically and internationally posited that Trump’s tariffs would fail by obligating foreign countries to retaliate with their own tariffs. This, however, is a fallacy; tariffs are strategic tools aimed at compelling foreign governments to engage in negotiations that favor U.S. interests, not instruments of coercion.
As we are now nine months into Trump’s administration, shifts have occurred, illustrating that his policies may indeed serve U.S. interests more effectively than previously thought, regardless of foreign disapproval. The United States is a sovereign nation, and it is the duty of its president to advocate for American priorities, irrespective of the preferences of foreign governments or international organizations.
The ACLU has argued that various human rights groups, international law experts, and policy analysts have raised alarms that many of Trump’s immigration policies and touchpoints can foster authoritarianism and potentially lead to large-scale atrocities; although there’s contention over labeling this as “genocide.” The ACLU posits that these critiques are not merely isolated instances, but part of a larger trend that risks undermining democratic institutions and placing vulnerable populations in peril globally.
In examining this criticism, it’s crucial to recognize that legal experts lack jurisdiction over “rhetoric” unless it constitutes a legal infraction; the critiques fail to assert that Trump’s discourse is unlawful. The implications extend similarly to policies. While international law specialists can comment on the legality of U.S. policies, the contention here is not about legality per se, but rather the potential for Trump’s stance to embolden similar behavior by other leaders. This emerges not only as an unsubstantiated claim but also does not infringe upon legal structures.
In a report, the Asia Times—a publication favoring the Chinese Communist Party and critical of Trump—contended that Trump’s immigration policies contribute to “fuel for Myanmar’s Rohingya genocide.” This shifts the focus from the ACLU’s sweeping assertions to a specific genocide notably ongoing since Obama’s term, which Trump has neither acknowledged nor addressed.
By their reasoning, should Trump now consider reopening the southern border and facilitating illegal immigration to avert genocidal outcomes in Myanmar? And if liberal proponents truly believe in this logic, it raises the question—why did such injustices continue under the open-border paradigm of Obama and Biden?
Interestingly, Genocide Watch claimed that Trump’s mass deportation strategies violate international law by stating: “President Trump’s directive to arrest and deport millions of undocumented immigrants, inclusive of numerous refugees, goes against U.S. commitments under the 1967 Protocol on the Status of Refugees.” The treaty received unanimous ratification in the U.S. Senate in 1968 and stands with 147 nations as States Parties to the treaty.
Nonetheless, a more nuanced examination reveals that potential legal challenges would likely only center around the deportation of asylum seekers, not of all undocumented immigrants. This Convention delineates the qualifications for refugees and applies distinctly to those granted asylum; it does not afford blanket protection to all undocumented individuals.
Moreover, challenges arise in their claims, as while the Senate indeed issues approval or disapproval of treaties, ratification remains an executive action enacted by the president, not a legislative body. Additionally, the 1967 Refugee Protocol has largely been recognized as non-self-executing under U.S. law, necessitating additional implementing legislation. U.S. courts have consistently ruled that the Protocol does not impose automatic legal obligations domestically and that existing laws governing refugees sufficed for its incorporation.
Ultimately, the essence of the matter rests in the fact that Americans select their president to further their collective interests. Since World War II, the U.S. has borne the weight of assisting other nations; however, Trump is advocating for a recalibration, calling for more substantial accountability from Europe regarding global responsibilities.
