As Election Day approaches, voters must consider their choice between two leaders, each with their own style and vision. If Donald Trump were to return to the presidency amid a full-scale World War III, his unique approach to domestic and foreign policy would likely shape a very distinct response to global conflict.

Trump’s “America First” policy and complex relationships with global leaders would bring advantages and challenges. Here’s a look at how a Trump presidency might handle World War III, balancing his strengths and criticisms to provide a neutral perspective on his possible approach.

---

1. Europe: Navigating Strained Alliances and Self-Defense

Trump’s “America First” stance could impact Europe in the context of NATO. During his first term, Trump encouraged NATO countries to contribute more to their personal defense and even threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the alliance if these financial commitments weren’t met. If war were to break out, Trump might adopt a reduced U.S. role in European defense, pushing European nations to take on more responsibility.

Some European countries, especially those closer to Russia like Poland and the Baltic states would feel vulnerable to attack. These nations depend on NATO’s collective defense, and without guaranteed U.S. support, they would feel pressured to expand their military. Trump’s approach could foster European unity in self-defense and political tensions as European nations decide whether to rely on U.S. support or develop independent security measures.

One potential risk is a growing divide between countries that support a strong NATO presence and those that might lean toward closer ties with Russia. Trump’s past reluctance to criticize Vladimir Putin has led some to believe that his administration could take a more neutral stance on Russian aggression, which could fuel further tension within Europe.

2. Israel: A Strong Ally with Trump

Trump has shown unwavering support for Israel, famously declaring at the RNC that he would “make Israel great again.” Under Trump, the U.S.-Israel alliance would likely strengthen even further, especially if a World War III scenario involves rising tensions in the Middle East. Trump’s administration previously recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and facilitated the Abraham Accords, normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab nations.

With Trump’s strong backing, Israel would likely receive robust military aid, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic support from the U.S. In the event of a regional conflict, his administration would probably stand by Israel’s defense against potential adversaries like Iran.

However, Trump’s support could come with a more transactional approach. His history of prioritizing bilateral deals and focusing on direct benefits for the U.S. could mean that aid to Israel might be framed in terms of mutual defense and economic benefits. In any Middle Eastern escalation, Trump’s tendency toward decisive military actions, like the Soleimani airstrike, could also put the US in a position of deeper involvement if conflict with Iran expands.

3. United States: Isolationism and Selective Military Engagement

If Trump returns to the presidency, his “America First” philosophy may continue to guide U.S. foreign policy, emphasizing limited international involvement unless American interests are at risk. He might prefer to avoid prolonged European or Asian conflicts unless the U.S. is directly threatened. Instead, Trump could opt for quick, targeted military actions rather than large-scale deployments, which aligns with his past preference for decisive interventions.

Trump has a history of leveraging tariffs and sanctions and we could expect him to employ economic pressure to assert U.S. influence. During a global war, these measures could lead to trade disruptions, especially with countries like China, with whom Trump has had tense trade relations. His approach to economic warfare might focus on pressuring allies to contribute more to their defense, which could be both a relief and a challenge for American taxpayers and foreign partners.

4. Navigating Domestic Division and Public Opinion

A Trump presidency in wartime would likely face intense domestic division. Trump’s nationalist rhetoric could rally supporters around an “America First” approach, emphasizing American sovereignty and prioritizing domestic resources over foreign intervention. However, this approach might further polarize the country, as many liberals view his unilateral style and assertive stances as divisive.

In a time of conflict, Trump might take strong measures to maintain order, using the National Guard and executive power to manage dissent and potential protests. His approach could create public debate over civil liberties and national security, with supporters praising his commitment to national stability and detractors expressing concern over the extent of his executive reach.

5. Global Reactions and the Future of Alliances

On the global stage, Trump’s relationships with major players like Russia and China could shape alliances. Trump’s past interactions with Vladimir Putin suggest a potentially more conciliatory stance toward Russia, which could lead to tensions within NATO and the broader international community. His approach could alter the global response to Russian aggression, with some allies questioning whether the U.S. would uphold traditional security commitments.

On the other hand, Trump’s stance toward China has been consistently hardline. In World War III, Trump’s policies could lead to heightened tensions with China, particularly regarding trade, technology, and Taiwan. His emphasis on economic and national security interests could mean that relations with China would remain contentious, adding a layer of complexity to global conflict dynamics.

Traditional allies would be challenged to navigate a cohesive strategy with a U.S. president who favors bilateral deals over multilateral agreements. Trump’s emphasis on transactional relationships may lead to strained alliances, as partners may feel pressured to align with U.S. interests directly rather than through international organizations.

Conclusion: Strengths, Criticisms, and an Unpredictable Global Order

If Donald Trump were to lead the U.S. during a hypothetical World War III, his presidency would likely reflect his strengths and the criticisms that have shaped his past. His strong support for Israel would reassure allies in the Middle East, yet his more isolationist tendencies might lead to a reshaping of NATO and U.S.-European relations. Domestically, his assertive “America First” approach could intensify divisions, with supporters championing his focus on national security and detractors wary of his unilateral actions.

Ultimately, a Trump presidency in a World War III context would introduce a complex mix of nationalism, strategic alliances, and selective engagement. The world would face a more fragmented and potentially volatile order, with the U.S. balancing an inward focus on its interests against the reality of global interdependence. As Election Day draws near, it’s worth reflecting on these possibilities, as they highlight the high stakes of choosing a leader who may have to navigate a divided world in uncertain times.

Your vote matters, shaping not just the country’s future but its role on the global stage.