Defense expenditure of the U.S. has steadily increased with an aim to modernize, and increase the size and strength of the military forces to assert America’s military dominance in the world. As the U.S. continues to maintain the largest defense budget in the world, it has long believed that this military supremacy is advantageous to safeguard and spread American values globally.
As President Donald J. Trump crosses the 100-day threshold of his second term in office, a new era of transatlantic relations is taking shape. These first 100 days have not only reinforced his "America First" rhetoric, but also reignited critical debates within Europe about the future of its security, economic independence, and geopolitical alignment. For Europe, the message is increasingly clear: strategic autonomy is no longer an aspiration—it is a necessity.
In a bold, high-risk move, President Félix Tshisekedi has signed a mineral-for-security agreement with the United States—an audacious pivot that may either ignite a new chapter of sovereignty or deepen the nation’s postcolonial wounds.
The U.S. had been critical and concerned after the 1974 nuclear tests conducted by India and tightened its nuclear-related exports to India to control arms proliferation. Following the second round of testing by a non-NPT (Nuclear Proliferation Treaty) signatory India in 1998
One can assert the Trump administration violated this amendment of the US constitution through the detention of US green card and student visa holders as presented in the cases of Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk, two students who were detained. The reasons for their forced detention were tied to their involvement in pro-Palestine protests or criticisms of the US foreign policy relating to Israel’s campaign in Gaza (Pazmino, Rose, and Roy, 2025).
Not restricting to a buyer-seller relationship, the shared strategic interests between the two states have carved out a partnership which has increasingly focussed on greater military integration, sharing advanced technologies, innovation, and research and development. A string of key agreements over time has made this expansion and deepening of strategic relations possible.
After Donald Trump returned to the presidency in January 2025, he reignited his administration’s protectionist trade policies under the banner of “America First.” Central to this approach is the aggressive use of tariffs, taxes imposed on imports to curb trade deficits, promote domestic manufacturing, and punish what Trump calls “unfair trade practices,” particularly by China.
At the heart of this policy is a 10% baseline tariff on imports from 185 countries, amplified by exponential penalties on selected geopolitical and economic adversaries. Chinese goods now face a total of 104% in tariffs, a staggering figure that underscores the combative mood in Washington. The European Union, India, Canada, and Mexico have also been targeted with tariffs ranging from 15% to 26%, sparking widespread retaliation and diplomatic fallout.
The U.S. military currently has several programmes focussed on missile defense designed to intervene at different stages of a missile’s flight and missile types, ensuring coverage against a variety of aerial threats. One such example is the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense or THAAD program under the aegis of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency that is charged with the task of developing a defense system to intercept and destroy short, medium, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles during the final stage of their flight as they re-enter the atmosphere.
Not long after his inauguration, Trump announced a plan to place tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China as part of his trade policy. In the case of Canada, Trump placed 10% ad valorem duties on Canadian energy and energy resources as well 25% ad valorem duties on all goods that are not energy related (Allen et.al, 2025). While some can argue tariffs can be used as a leveraging tool to compete against trade competitors such as China and as a coercion tool to force Mexico to deal with migration issues, the reasoning behind placing tariffs on Canadian goods and resources leaves room for numerous questions