Trump’s speech to Congress: America First in trade and alliances

Trump’s speech to Congress: America First in trade and alliances

In what might have been the longest presidential address to Congress in American history—an hour and forty minutes without intermission—President Donald Trump delivered a performance on Tuesday night that was simultaneously grandiose, confrontational, optimistic and revealing of the direction in which he intended to take his administration and his country.

It also received high marks from nearly seven in 10 Americans who watched it.

For Australian observers, the annual address, as expected at such spectacles, offered few specifics but did provide insights into how the United States’ role in the world is evolving. It’s a transformation with implications for the Indo-Pacific and allies’ strategic calculations.

Electoral politics is theatrical by nature, but Trump has elevated the art well beyond the standards of the campaign season and his first term in office. His address to Congress displayed all the elements of classic political theater: the heroes (Trump himself, and the various ‘everyday Americans’ whose stories he highlighted), the villains (the Democratic opposition, sitting glumly throughout), and the dramatic narrative arc of national redemption

‘America is back,’ Trump declared in the opening moments, setting the tone for what would be a celebration of his administration’s accomplishments and a vision of US restoration.

The president’s embrace of tariffs signals a fundamental shift in American economic policy that will reverberate throughout global supply chains.

‘On April 2nd reciprocal tariffs kick in,’ Trump announced, explaining his philosophy: ‘whatever they tariff us, other countries, we will tariff them.’ This principle of reciprocity was framed not as protectionism but as fairness. ‘We will take in trillions and trillions of dollars and create jobs like we have never seen before,’ he added.

Trump’s economic vision represents a rejection of the post-Cold War neoliberal consensus that has dominated Western economic thinking. In its place stands a muscular economic nationalism that prioritises American manufacturing, energy production and job creation above abstract principles of free trade. Australia, with its robust trade relationships with both the US and China, will need to navigate carefully across this evolving landscape.

The president’s emphasis on US energy dominance further underscores this nationalist approach. By declaring a ‘national energy emergency’ and authorising expanded fossil fuel production as part of an all-energy policy, Trump is signaling a reversal of policies that is sure to rile many Americans and Australians.

Perhaps most consequential for Australia’s strategic position was Trump’s articulation of his foreign policy vision, which represents a break from both Republican neocons and Democratic liberal interventionism.

His approach blends two different veins of American foreign policy thinking identified by Walter Russell Mead. The president taps Hamiltonian elements, such as economic strength as power, national security linked to economic strength, and alliances between government and business. He talks about making the world safe for American business.

Trump also exhibits a Jacksonian streak—sceptical of foreign entanglements, preferring a restrained military but willing to exercise overwhelming force when US interests are directly threatened, and insisting on putting America—and rank-and-file Americans—first.

On Ukraine, Trump revealed he had received a letter from President Zelenskyy stating that ‘Ukraine is ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible to bring lasting peace closer.’ This announcement, coupled with Trump’s assertion that he had also had ‘serious discussion with Russia,’ simply repeated his determination to end the conflict rapidly.

‘It’s time to stop this madness,’ Trump declared. ‘It’s time to halt the killing. It’s time to end this senseless war.’ For Australia, which has supported Ukraine diplomatically and materially, this pivot represents a challenge. Canberra can get on the peace train now or decline to align with its chief security provider with the hopes that Trump won’t see Australia as an obstacle to ending the fighting and that prolonging the war may, perhaps, result in some future better outcome for Kiev.

Similarly, Trump’s approach to the Middle East suggests a willingness to allow Israel greater freedom of action while the US simultaneously works to end the conflict in Gaza. ‘Iran, of course, is at the nexus of Middle Eastern tensions,’ Trump said, suggesting a harder line against Tehran than his predecessor’s administration.

The president’s announcements regarding the Panama Canal (‘We are taking it back’) and Greenland (‘We need Greenland for national security’) are classic Trumpian figurative language but also reveal his policy of hemispheric prioritisation.

Perhaps most striking was the evidence of how Trump has transformed the Republican Party. His speech revealed a party no longer defined by free-market orthodoxy, limited government and interventionist foreign policy but instead by economic nationalism, cultural conservatism and a focus on working-class interests. Trump concluded his speech thus: ‘Every single day we will stand up and we will fight, fight, fight for the country our citizens believe in and for the country our people deserve.’

‘The Republican Party is now the party of peace,’ Trump declared, cementing his break with Republican primacists—those who are committed to US global dominance. His criticism of endless wars, coupled with his emphasis on border security and economic protectionism, represents realignment of American politics with Pacific implications. The US, after all, is a Pacific power and, among many things, a Pacific island state.

Trump’s address is just another signal of shifts that Australians have seen coming. First, his emphasis on America First economic policies suggests potential trade tensions, even with allies. Australia’s export economy may suffer from reciprocal tariffs and Trump’s focus on American manufacturing.

Second, Trump’s scepticism of legacy alliances and international institutions—whose value and utility he measures against contemporary US interests—may create uncertainty in the regional security architecture that Australia has relied on. While Trump did not specifically or directly address the Indo-Pacific or China in this speech, his America First theme should remind Australia to demonstrate its value to the alliance more explicitly.

Finally, Trump’s populist realignment of US politics mirrors a broader shift in Western democracies that may yet influence Australian politics. The success of his economic- nationalist and cultural messaging offers a template for Australian politicians.

Australians, watching this political theater from afar, would do well to remember that this is also reality. Structural demands for change in the global order will remain on stage long after the applause for Trump fades.