Mia Prange & Layla MoheyEldin | News Editors
Following the results of last week’s US presidential election, the international community is expecting the US to undergo major policy shifts over the next four years. STAIR asked experts from across Oxford to weigh in on how a second Trump presidency will impact various international issues, from climate change to the state of democracy worldwide.
“What does a second Trump presidency mean for the politicisation of global media?”
Dr. Andrew Dougall (Departmental Lecturer in International Relations)
Trump’s return to the White House inevitably raises questions about the politicisation of media in the United States, as well as its contribution to his re-election. When he last won in 2016, he was heralded as the ‘Twitter President’ and it became common sense to credit social media with electing him. In my view, this argument was overdrawn. First, it failed to account for how Trump capitalised on the radicalization of the right-wing mediasphere dating back to the Limbaugh-era of the early 2000s. Second, it ignored the role of centrist legacy outlets in re-mediating right-wing talking points. By 2020 and 2024, centrist outlets had largely become inured to Trump’s efforts to ‘pull’ coverage toward his perspective. The question, then, is what happened? 2024, I think, represents the breakdown of any pretence of a joined-up media sphere anchored around a common public square. Instead, it became a battle of two media spheres—the right vs the rest—to turn out voters and delegitimize one another. The roots of this schism long predate Trump. Yet his second victory cements him as his generation’s most skilled proponent of ‘divide and rule.’ It remains to be seen whether this signals a deeper—and potentially irredeemable—breakdown in voters’ capacity to entertain the possibility of truth transcending difference. And that is before we consider the potential contribution of generative AI, which—perhaps mercifully—appeared to play a minor role this time around.
"What does a second Trump presidency mean for immigration?”
Professor Carlos Vargas-Silva (Professor in Migration Studies and Director of the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS))
Public opinion surveys in the United States suggest that the state of the economy is a major concern and a public policy priority. It follows that US voters should support policies that are beneficial for the country’s economy. Yet, even with the substantial evidence of the economic benefits of migration, a majority of American voters supported the restrictive agenda of Donald Trump, which puts emphasis on deportations and limits on the right to US citizenship, among others.
Aware of the complex links of migration to the economy, politicians often rally around restrictions on an unpopular type of immigration for electoral purposes (for example, irregular border crossings), but support other types after the election period. For instance, ending EU free movement, a key facilitator of migration to the UK, was the main promise of the political leaders campaigning for Brexit. Yet, some of those same leaders later established a relatively liberal post-Brexit immigration system that has led to record net-migration levels in the country, even without EU free movement.
Will the second Donald Trump administration follow the same pattern or will they fulfil their campaign promises on immigration? The one consistent feature of the first Trump administration was its unpredictability. Hence, we have to wait and see. The Biden and Obama administrations did have a restrictive agenda targeted at particular migrant groups, including deportations, but adopted a more conciliatory narrative regarding overall migration. The one thing we can be sure about the second Trump administration is that whatever policies are adopted on migration, in practice it will be accompanied by a very strong rhetoric.
"What does a second Trump presidency mean for Latin America?"
Dr. Felipe Krause (Departmental Lecturer in Latin American Studies, fmr. Diplomat, Brazilian Foreign Service)
I think a significant shift in US-Latin American relations is about to happen. The region can expect to move from a phase of relative neglect to one of more strategic, albeit self-serving, US engagement. Unlike what would have been seen under a Kamala Harris administration, which would have likely focused on human rights, governance and climate/environment talks, Trump’s approach will prioritise US economic and security interests. Mexico in particular, but also the broader region, will become central to three critical issues: immigration, drug control and countering China’s influence. Policies aimed at stemming migration and the flow of drugs, reducing inflation through low-cost manufacturing, and reducing reliance on Chinese trade via nearshoring will hinge on maintaining a sustainable but pressured relationship with Mexico.
In the context of regional politics, Trump’s return could resonate with leaders like Javier Milei in Argentina and Nayib Bukele in El Salvador, lending them rhetorical support while concrete benefits remain uncertain. For Brazil, the scenario is nuanced. Bolsonaro’s movement is likely to gain new momentum, with hopes of a political comeback fueled by Trump’s success. However, President Lula’s position is more complex. Lula’s first term witnessed surprisingly positive ties with George W. Bush but more strained relations with Barack Obama. In short, history shows that Lula is pragmatic and deals rather well with Republican presidents who are generally uninterested in getting deeply involved in Brazil—and generally leaves it alone to pursue its global agenda. Trump’s scepticism toward the US-led post-World War II global order could be useful for Lula’s ambitions for a multipolar world, with a retracting US. Yet, Trump’s protectionist policies could also present significant challenges for Brazil’s economy, particularly affecting exports such as steel and agricultural products, potentially leading to political strain.
In my opinion, opportunities may arise if the US decides to invest in regional infrastructure, potentially with support from multilateral development banks. Such initiatives could address the underlying drivers of migration and reduce Chinese influence. If pursued, this strategy would enable the US to address migration and geopolitical challenges more effectively. This is not mere wishful thinking—back in 2020, Trump nominee to the Inter-American Development Bank Mauricio Claver-Carone had already mentioned a similar vision.
"What does a second Trump presidency mean for US military policy and for climate change?"
Professor Neta Crawford (Montague Burton Chair in International Relations)
The next Trump administration has promised to increase military spending. I suspect they will do so, even though such an increase is likely unnecessary from the perspective of meeting any military challenges in the near term. The Russians are depleted by their war in Ukraine, and China does not pose a significant military threat that cannot be dealt with by existing spending. Trump will in all likelihood be more bellicose with China and this may mean that they react by building up their forces. At that point, the US will likely then increase its own spending and armament. This is a security dilemma spiral.
Regarding climate change, the next Trump administration will be a disaster for the world in the short and long term. Its growth in military spending will lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions, its policy of burning as if there were no tomorrow, and its hostility to renewables will set the world back in terms of meeting its emissions reduction goals. The hostility to regulating methane emissions is also foolhardy. More militarization will also lead to other nations' military emissions increasing. Some of the states within the US will react by enacting local restrictions on emissions, as they did in the first Trump administration. But overall, the pace of US emissions reductions will decline. We can't afford that as a planet.
"What does a second Trump presidency mean for the relationship between democracy and capitalism?"
James Conran (Departmental Lecturer in Public Policy)
If the stock market is any authority, Trump’s victory has been a welcome tonic for American capitalism—and the world’s richest capitalist clearly agrees. This may come as a surprise to those of us who assume businesses depend on stable governance and global market conditions that seem favoured by neither Trump’s hostility to trade and immigration nor his erratic (to put it kindly) personality. Investors’ sanguine response can be attributed in part to relief that the election had an immediate and uncontested outcome, unmarred by the kind of violence Trump might have (again) unleashed had he been defeated at the ballot box. But markets also thrived during Trump’s first term—the traditional Republican priorities of tax cuts and deregulation outweighing the impact of trade skirmishes with China (since intensified under the Biden administration into something more like a real “trade war”). Perhaps they simply expect more of the same.
As for the awkward cohabitation of democracy and capitalism: this was not a referendum on the mode of production, and American democracy actually remains both protected and limited by the institutional straitjacket of the court-interpreted Constitution. Nevertheless, the first true popular endorsement of Trump’s brand of “national capitalism” shows again that the two can still manage to keep the show on the road. Perhaps the appropriate analogy is that of an aging couple who know—and often exploit—each other’s flaws and vulnerabilities but ultimately can’t quite envisage any more tolerable alternative arrangement—for the time being…
"What does a second Trump presidency mean for the state of democracy worldwide?"
Professor Giovanni Capoccia (Professor of Comparative Politics)
On the question of the implications for democracy worldwide of Trump's victory, I believe there is a twofold implication. First, the foreign policy of autocracies will be reinforced, to the extent that it does not conflict with the US interests—in other words, Trump's victory will certainly be a boon for Putin in the Ukrainian war and a bane for the European Union's interests of helping Ukraine resist Russia's attack. China may find a strong adversary in Trump for its plans on Taiwan, although it is probably too early to make predictions in that respect. Second, Trump's victory will certainly embolden the radical right in every liberal democracy. This will certainly have effects on the stability of democracies around the world.
It is hard to accurately predict what these next four years will hold for the United States and the world, but Oxford experts agree significant changes are on the horizon. During his campaign, Trump promised to reinvigorate the American economy, severely limit immigration, and end the conflicts in the Middle East and between Russia and Ukraine. As Oxford experts suggest, it remains unclear whether Trump’s rhetoric will translate into effective policies for achieving his administration’s goals. As a result, we must wait and see what Trump's return to the presidency will mean for the world.
