American Foreign Policy under Donald Trump

METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY PRAGUE
MASTER’S DISSERTATION
2019 Nevila Mullaj

2 | P a g e
METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY PRAGUE
International Relations and European Studies
MASTER’S DISSERTATION
AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY AND
NATIONAL IDENTITY UNDER DONALD
TRUMP
Národní identita a Americká zahraniční politika pod
Donaldem Trumpem
Author: Nevila Mullaj
Supervisor: Michal Kolmaš, Mgr. Ph.D.
2019

3 | P a g e
Acknowledgments
Accomplishing this thesis on the United States foreign policy, came as my personal
dedication to the American politics and the role of USA in the world.
I would like express my deep gratitude to my supervisor, Michal Kolmaš, Mgr, Ph.D., for his
dedicated guidance, continuous support, and valuable assistance. Without his professionalism
and encouragement, it would have been hard to finalize it in such level.
I am thankful to the Department of International Relations and European Studies, at the
Metropolitan University Prague for the opportunity of being part of it, and all the colleagues
who trusted in my potentials. Special gratitude goes to my sister Genta, who had been a
continuous source of strength and motivation.

4 | P a g e
Table of Contents
1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………. 5
2. Theoretical conceptualization………………………………………………...7
2.1.Post structuralism………………………………………………………...10
2.2.Post structuralism and Identity Politics…………………………………..13
3. Methodology and Discourse Analysis……………………………………… 19
3.1.Methodology aspects…………………………………………………….22
4. Trump Speeches Analysis……………………………………………….28
4.1.Twitter Analysis………………………………………………………… 37
4.2.Volatility of the American national identity…………………………… 46
5. Review of the American Foreign Policy during Trump……………………. 48
5.1.Three dimensions of AFP……………………………………………… 52
5.2.Implications of Trump’s discourse……………………………………… 56
6. Conclusions………………………………………………………...………... 60
7. Bibliography…………………………………………………………………..61

5 | P a g e
1. Introduction
The United States represent a superpower in both economic and political arena, therefore its
foreign policy has a major impact in international relations. As such, they have been heavily
investigated by existing international relations approaches and theories. But although much of
this international relations scholarship – especially the positivist realism and liberalism – has
tried to understand American behavior in terms of rational policymaking and the
predominance of national interest, it seems that understanding contemporary American
politics requires different toolkit that traditional theories cannot provide us. Especially given
the rise of Donald Trump, it seems like American politics has performed an “identity” turn.
To understand this, I employ an approach that goes beyond rationalism and tries to interpret
Trump´s foreign policy through the lens of national identity
The research attempts to show that United States of America represent an interesting case
where national identity is interconnected with foreign policy. My main interest will lie in the
discourse of the Trump administration and I believe, that this identity/discursive approach will
allow me to fully understand its foreign policy in a wider spectrum.
Katzenstein (1996) argued that identity defines foreign policy, leading to his belief that
identity matters in international relations. My motivation is fully compliant with this
statement, and is twofold: First, to understand what we mean by American national identity
and how is it discursively constructed; second, to search how this dynamic appears during
Trump’s foreign policy. American foreign policy is still a recent ongoing process, so it`s
difficult to predict clearly the outcome of its actions, and how it really can change in big
picture the international relations realm. Also, there is a lack of previous studies on American
foreign policy under Donald Trump, hence strengthens the motivation even more to achieve
the research objectives.
The relevance of national identity in international relations has been increased since the 1980s.
This has been viewed as a cardinal factor in foreign policy. Previously, neorealism and its
interpretation of the primacy of state interests dominated theoretical debates in international
relations. Social constructivism, together with other influent schools like post structuralism,
has changed this understanding of international relations. On the core of constructivist
scholarship lies identity. In this perspective identity matters, norms matter and also identity is
socially constructed. In order to apprehend the role of identity in American foreign policy

6 | P a g e
making, I will depart from a post-structural theoretical framework and the methodology of
discourse analysis, which will be elaborated later.
There are three research questions, whose objective are to support the main arguments and
provide a coherent interpretation on the role of national identity in American foreign policy as
below:
1. How are identity and foreign policy interconnected?
2. How can post-structuralism help us to understand the connection between
American foreign policy and national identity?
3. How is American identity presented in Trump’s Make America Great Again?
Based on theoretical conceptualization of post structuralism and discourse analysis
methodology, the respective answers will be identified. These three research questions intend
to display the role of national identity in foreign policy, how it has been applied through
discursive processes and most importantly to what extend this is reflected in the nowadays
Trump’s American foreign policy. Again, post structuralism is chosen as the theory than can
explain the best the American identity and its relation to the foreign policy. Moreover, it relies
on the power of the discourse, and how it affects the perception of self/others. In the case of
Donald Trump’s discourse on American national identity, it is the most efficient way to
understand how identity and foreign policy are correlated and the extent of the discourse
influence over the reproduction of the American national identity.

7 | P a g e
2. Theoretical conceptualisation
Some authors believe that identity shares the predicament of its definition being contested
with ‘power’, ‘culture’, ‘democracy’, ‘security’ (Berenskoetter, 2010). Others, view
contestation as an inclusive element which lies within identity. Crucial aspects like
identification, self-understanding, and connectedness are highlighted in (Brubaker and Cooper
2000). In norm constructivists approach, identity affects in national interest, thus it’s a source
for foreign policy (Hopf 2002; Katzenstein 1996b; Wendt 1999). Interests are considered
independent variables, whereas the behavior is dependent. It is the connection between
behavior and identity which is essential in our view. The exploit of identity by relational
constructivism for example requires a rather different concept of identity. It is comprehended
as a “relational” understanding where demarcations between domestic and international, or
Self and Other are the key identity’s constituent component (Campbell 1998; Connolly 1991;
Neumann 1996)
Naturally, by analyzing the identity it is essential to ponder resilience and change. According
to constructivism scholarship constructivism is about change (Adler 2002: 102). Both
resilience and change are explained furthermore in many other works (Finnemore and
Sikkink, 1998; Kowert and Legro, 1996). This leads us to believe that in exploring the
dimensions of resilience is related to continuity of the identity. On the contrary, change
creates disruption.
In the example of the American national identity, the values, norms and standards considered
to be the basis of the American perception like: freedom and democracy, freedom of
individual, economic independence and entrepreneurial spirit constitute the stability for the
average American. The idea that people are free, the relationship with government, a limited
government indeed and the whole creative disruptive free market economy, stand on the basis
of the way how American identity is implemented. Moreover, the element of religion, which
in the American society is correlated to an ethical social morality system also deriving from
strong protestant historical background.
In fact, the values of freedom, liberty, responsibility and serving to the community have
assembled the continuity of American national identity. Therefore, this thesis’s standpoint is

8 | P a g e
to prove that also in American foreign policy they are mirrored significantly. Constructivism
elaborates on the issue of identity in layers’ conceptualization. In this perspective there are
two types of layers: the more institutionalized and less institutionalized ones. Identity change
interrelates within the less institutionalized layers and it is constituted on mutually interacting
levels of inter-subjective meaning making (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985). According to (Waever,
2002) the more sedimented institutionalized layers on the other hand are more difficult to
change due to political discourse of actors.
In identity politics, analyzing the factors of identity change is developed in two main
categories: the first is the identity entrepreneurs and secondly, the emotions. The first one
relates to identity entrepreneurs who create, endorse events through the use of an interpretive
language (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998). The language of the discourse can either maintain
the power of identity constructions, or the actors can affect in transformation of identity
through discursive practices (called a relational power (Baldwin, 2013). The second category
affecting in identity change is the emotions. The correlation between emotions and identity is
seen in the prism of patriotism and nationalism (Mercer 2010). In such context, the case of the
American national identity and the discourse power of Trump includes a high dose of
patriotism. This triggers the social emotions within USA and serves as an indicator for the
other countries to reposition towards the American foreign policies in international relations.
These findings make it obvious that identity changes matter very much in International
Relations. The instrumentalization of the American national identity in foreign policies
through the narratives and discourses reinforces the substantial power of identity in politics.
The argument of this thesis relies that the concept of national identity is generally very wide.
However, in the case of American national identity, the formation, re-projection and its
reconstruction appeared very dynamic. Through this lens, the change produced by identity
discourse is still a constant. There is a constant change in the use of discursive power. To
support this view, it can be referred to previous USA’s administrations. From Clinton, to
Obama and then George W. Bush, the meaning of American national identity in the foreign
policy practices remains almost the same. Strong discourses, dynamic actors and political
leaders who have used the national identity to legitimize their political endeavors on foreign
affairs. Despite differences in internal and external policies, different presidents remained
loyal to the American values and national identity. Therefore, we argue that the discursive
practices were different, the identity entrepreneur as well: but the notion of national identity

9 | P a g e
and its emotional significance in the American Foreign policy remained the same. This could
be viewed as continuity. Fundamentally, this is related to the constant” Others” affecting very
much in a cohesion of internal national discourse.
The theoretical conceptualisation has two central functions: the first, is to show the
connection between the American national identity and its foreign policy based on post
structuralism scholarship. The second, is to illustrate this relation through the use the critical
discourse analysis of the Donald Trump’s foreign policy instrumentalization. On such basis,
attempts to understand the national identity will be fully based on research and crucial
findings of post structuralism scholarship. Furthermore, the representation of national identity
in foreign policy could be displayed through the sedimentation model. The purpose is to
understand how the discourse narrative of Donald Trump on politics of identity, as well as
„MAGA“ Doctrine positions the American foreign policy in a superior international posture.
The central focus of this thesis is the role of the American identity in foreign policy. The
timeframe of the analysis covers the Donald Trump’s administration and presidency, thus
during this period the correlation between national identity and the American foreign policy
will be highlighted. The major source and academic findings are based on David Campbell’s
“Writing Security”. In this book is outlined the connection between the identity and the
foreign policy. The foreign policy is basically conceived as a byproduct of the discourse of
danger and fear (Campbell, 1992). Besides, the post-structuralist view of identity is developed
through the discourse between “Self” and “Others”. On such basis, the American identity
could be seen within this dual relationship. Moreover, this study argues that to produce a
“self”, a clear-cut concept of “Others” should stand as a security threat. For instance, at
Donald Trump’s foreign policy, it is easily encountered the process of producing and
reproducing of threats, in order to emphasize the “self” part. A Self is always constructed in
relation to an “Other”

10 | P a g e
2.1. Post structuralism
The reason that this thesis will use post-structuralism approach, is that it is the best way for
explaining the re-projection of the USA identity in the American foreign policy. It best
illustrates, analyzes and clarifies identity form the theoretical point of view. Post-structuralism
theory elaborates its main concepts of state national identity and the power. From the
international relations view, post structuralism indicates the strong concern with structures
and the stability of the state in the international system (Waever, 2002). Contributions in this
field signaled that the state national security could be assessed through the threat analysis.
This is believed to be a process, in which the nation idea is produced and reproduced in
relation to its particular identity (Campbell,1998). Post structuralism concentrates on the
significance of power and knowledge, which are both connected with the discourse. For
example, Den Derian demonstrated intertextuality in the narrative of the truth through
American literature (Derian, 1987), arguing that the US should be catching up the fast pace
the world is changing. This change affects the relations between state and the individuals. As
it will be presented in the discourse analysis section below, the social media on American
national identity extended its discursive power in the foreign policy too.
Established in France in the late 1960s primary as criticism movement in philosophy, this
theory determines itself as an opposition to structuralism. Founders include James Den
Derian, Michel Foucault, Julia Kresteva, Ronald Barthes. In the philosophical aspect, it
explains the direct relationship between the language and the signification (Marieke, 2006)
Post structuralists view power in two main aspects: first, as a crucial factor; second, the
power-truth connection. The second aspect is found on the work of Derian, who explores the
narrative of truth in US national security concept. In his view, the national security is
embedded with the concept of enigma, what lies beyond the US border is still alien and
undiscovered (Derian, 1987). Other post structuralist authors argue on the continuous identity
quest for new spaces, in order to overpass limitations imposed on it (Walker, 1990). The case
of Donald Trump being elected as a President, is viewed by many authors as a return of post
structuralism scholarship (Crilley and Doody, 2018) claiming that his victory was
accomplished on the basis of truth attack.

11 | P a g e
Moreover, it is the most efficient theory that can provide answers to the research questions
raised in this study. Post-structuralists view identity as an independent variable which
impacts on the foreign policy (Neumann, 1996; Campbell, 1998; Waever, 2002; Hansen
2006). In their understanding the shared cultural norms are not sufficient to explain the
foreign policy on this fixed perspective. Therefore, the national identity was outlined as both a
foreign policy product and a source. Likewise, in Campbell (1998) this is sustained in the
form of identity politics, also at Hansen (2006) the importance of security threats draws the
discourse of foreign policy practices.
Understanding fundamentally the power of discourse, post structuralism considers discourse
as a mean to elaborate the fluidity of the identity and norms. The relationship between Self
and the Other which is the key paradigm to understand foreign policy process at (Campbell
1998), serves as the crucial identification. This study judges that this creates a legitimization
juncture, as for “Us” to exist, a “Others” is needed. Through this binomial relation, concepts
like threats and dangers affect for a deeper cohesion in terms of “us”. According to (Hansen
2006) the identity is viewed in a co-constitutive process with the action. This would imply
that identity not only is key to drive actions and practices in the realm of foreign policy, but
also it creates and builds the understanding of the decision-making process.
In the light of this findings, the American foreign policy followed by Donald Trump stands as
a perfect example of the post structuralist approach. The reviewing of NAFTA, as a key
agreement of trade and economic relevance in North America, was based on the discourse of
USA economic supremacy towards Canada and Mexico. In this case, the USA pursued its
maximization of the benefits and profits from the deals, offering clearly its unequivocal
position of the economic hegemon. All this action was driven by crystallization of internal
discourse of putting America First and applying the MAGA Doctrine on the external relations.
Thus, both Canada and Mexico were perceived as the “others” and the legitimization of the
NAFTA renegotiation was the action itself. The national identity cause served to the action, as
well as they co-produced the new foreign policy practice.
In contrast, social constructivists believe that identities are produced by historical cultural
background and domestic contexts (Wendt, 1992, 1999; Hopf, 1998) They consider identity
as an independent variable. We could agree with this comment, then American Constitution
for example founded the national identity characteristics in the context of independent key

12 | P a g e
meanings. Values like freedom, liberty and happiness were stated as independent variables.
Despite the cultural background, this thesis ascertains that the permanence of references to the
historical and cultural background of America since its foundation, is still intensively
perceived in the discourse of national identity nowadays. The symbolism of American
national values deriving from historic background still vividly shapes the layers of identity.
But it is rather through discourse that these values are re-projected. Even vital historical
events like 9/11 and their symbolism for safety and security, are being reproduced into the
American foreign policy over and over again. They have primary served to re-construct the
national identity and serves as a historic milestone in identity sedimentation of norms.
Consequently, post-structuralists core idea of identity is the “othering”. Hence, the ‘self’ is
produced and exists only within the interaction with others and is produced/reproduced by
discourse (Campbell, 1998). For instance, the terroristic attacks on World Business Center in
New York in September 11th
outline a hallmark in which the “self” was re-produced against
the “others”. Moreover, post structuralism treats identity as linked to foreign policy. As the
works of authors sustain that national identity is inextricably linked to a state’s foreign policy.
They believe that through shaping the narrative, identity defines the foreign policy execution
framework. To exemplify this, the George W. Bush doctrine after 9/11 attacks could be a
paradigm for explaining how the narrative of “axis of evil” poured into the foreign policy
stances too.
As a result, for other post structuralist authors, national identity is reconfirmed as a discursive
product of distinguishing self from the “others” (Campbell, 1998; Hansen, 2006). Based on
this, Campbell portrayed the American reconstruction through the foreign policy discourse.
The “self” was formulated on the basis of the “others”. It can be commented that in “Writing
Security” the self/other articulation process depicts very well the American national identity
effect on foreign policy. Also, the interconnection between self/others has been generated by
the power of discourse and using of binary opposition keywords.
According to post-structuralism double reading method, we can distinguish the relationship
between the signifier and the signified. Also, trying to explore the relationship between the
myth- meaning the continuity, and discontinuity (Derrida, 1987) In post-structural
scholarship, and precisely in the genealogical method we see that the discontinuity becomes
the norm. Moreover, there’s no universal transcendental truth, but there are just

13 | P a g e
discontinuities, non-convention and nonlinear changes of power (Foucault, 1984). The
argument to sustain this is the application of “identity politics” in President Trump’s
discourse, which is excellent example of the post structuralist scholarship. In the political
discourse and the foreign policy practices, he proved to be a” discontinuity”.
Another crucial element is the use of the American national identity discourse references to
legitimize the foreign policy endeavors. The use of national discourse against ISIS, served as
a determinant for adding credibility to this cause. The “outsider” factors affect in the national
discourse of the American freeing policy under Trump administration. A clear example is the
reconstruction of the USA strong leadership and dominance in NATO. President Trump left
to understand that the members who don’t pay the membership fee can be reviewed as per
their engagement and responsibility towards the Alliance.1
In this case, the discursive
practice interaction created a new shape of othering too: “them”, the “non- responsible” or
even implying a derail from the Alliance values. According to (Hagstrom & Gustafsson,
2015), the “other” process can have different shapes. A powerful self means the construction
of a weak “other”. The American foreign policy applied in the Balkans, reflected in (Hansen
2006) demonstrated that there could be several types of shaping identity via the “othering”
process. In the Balkans the American identity formulated the foreign policy practices
accordingly.
Lastly, the discourse itself is valid and co-influences in the social process as an integral
element (Fairclough, 2001). Hence, the “other” and “self” construction is theorized. In
parallel with this appears to be the use of national identity discourse in the American foreign
policy, especially in official Trump speeches.
2.2. Post structuralism and Identity Politics
This thesis is based on the post structuralist scholarship as a primary theoretical
conceptualization. The relationship between national identity and foreign policy, has been
elaborated profoundly in David Campbell’s “Writing Security” (1998). In this work, the
dimensions of identity are explored not only on the basis of the post structuralist perspective,
but they are personalized specifically to the American foreign policy. Based on this important
1
The White House, Remarks by President Trump at Press Conference After NATO Summit Brussels, July 2018

14 | P a g e
publication findings, in ascertaining the “identity politics” there are three main dimensions to
consider:
1. Representation of Danger
One of the most vital dimensions of the identity and its re-projection into the foreign policy is
danger. It is believed to be an independent variable, as well as to play a crucial role on in the
articulation of identity discourse. To such context, the concept of danger can be seen in
parallel with the modes of danger representations (Campbell, 1998). In the perspective of the
Copenhagen school, the danger helped the securitization process, through the speech act
certain object referents were marked as dangers (Buzan, Waever and de Wilde, 1998). Thus,
the case of the American foreign policy discourse, the danger articulation takes an essential
importance. The securitization of sovereignty and of the American national identity values
appear to be more intense due to the nature of hegemonic dominance during the Cold War
period. On such basis, the danger articulation is considered to be pivotal for the American
foreign policy and political discourse. Moreover, this consisted in the use of binary opposite
presenting “the others” as anti-value, alien or subversive (Campbell, 1998).
Other authors argue that the threats are not deriving from the actions of the other side, but
from the simple existence of this entity labeled as “other”. Therefore, to understand the
American foreign policy and how danger is projected in it, an efficient way would be to
analyze the boundaries of identity (Connolly, 1991). As a result, in the case of the American
foreign policy, the boundaries of identity can be seen in the relation between “us” and “the
others”. Representation as a danger to the United States of America, enabled the Iraq invasion
in 2003 during George W. Bush presidency. The legitimization of this invasion which is
analogue to that in August 1990 as well, displayed that even though there was no direct risk or
threat of US from the Iraqi, the articulation of danger motivated the interventions.
On the other hand, during the Trump presidency, the same danger representation technique
was used towards ISIS and fighting terrorism in Iraq, Syria and Middle East. In every case,
we assist in how the American foreign policy is motivated, legitimized and driven towards
action through the essential concept of danger. In post structuralism’s view, the meaning of
danger can be deconstructed. However, in any case, the danger representation justifies the

15 | P a g e
existence of the identity. The qualities of danger stand as crucial to the state’s foundations.
Therefore, ending the representation of danger would risk its own existence (Mearsheimer,
1995).
The function of danger representation is found in the work of Connelly, “Identity/Difference:
Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox, in which he argues that the difference is
created in relation with identity (Connelly, 1991). According to this, in evaluating the
American foreign policy, the articulation of danger as a difference is very present. The danger
representation is believed to be a real manifestation of the national identiy and its impact on
foreign policy practices. If we rely to previous adminsitrations, in many vital historic
moments like the Gulf war for example, the danger representation dominated the political
discourse. When Senior Bush announced the operation Desert Shield in August 1990 stating
that: "In the life of a nation, we're called upon to define who we are and what we believe."2
Again this clarifies obviously, that the American foreign policy reflects the necessity of threat
interpretation in the context of state’s identity.
Similarly, in February 2019 President Trump addressed on the global coalition to fight ISIS,
commenting on the recovering of the Islamic State's territories in Syria and Iraq. However, the
danger represented by the radical ideology was articulated as a danger to the USA.3
Yet, we
assist at how the American foreign policy secures boundaries of national identity, through
discourse. Foucault claimed that the power of discourse is enormous, as it embodies the
signification aspect (Foucault, 1981). Additionally, another author claimed that the keywords
and metaphors, which are present in the discourse of power, target the environment of the
social relations (Harris, 1991). On the other hand, for post structuralists like Campbell, there
is nothing outside of discourse. In his work is mentioned the renewed system of dangers,
particularly after the Cold War (Campbell, 1998). Threats like terrorism and Islamic jihadism
are filling this void and re- creating new patterns of dangers for the American national identity.
2
George H.W. Bush Remarks, Address on Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait, 8 August 1990
3
The White House, Remarks by President Trump to the Ministers of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS,
February 6, 2019

16 | P a g e
For the United States of America, the functions of danger, otherness and difference enable the
identity constitution. Lastly, in the analysis the author concludes that we can understand the
US foreign policy as a political practice, which has in its core the producing and constituting
of the American identity (Campbell, 1998).
Another dimension of identity politics is the nature of the danger. From the historical
background, the USA challenged both military, economic and politically towards the ex-
Soviet Union. The articulation of danger came in the frames of ideology and the differences
were drawn on the basis of capitalism/ anti-capitalist system. The political aftermath of Cold
War affected the nature of discourse as well. In the case of the current political discourse, we
could outline the national security debate as being the most delicate one. According to the
post structuralist approach of Campbell, the political discourse is not very efficient in
providing security, leading into uncertainty and ambiguity. On the contrary, if we analyze the
Trump presidency and the extensive use of national identity discourse, it draws all the
attention into the national security. Post structuralism unravels the connection “self-others”
and focuses its interpretation on the United States foreign policy discursive boundaries
(Campbell, 1998)
Speaking of the articulation of the national identity in the official administrative, the paradigm
of National Security Strategy, is a perfect example of this articulation. In the NSS of year
2018, it is indicated the chief objective of the protection of US security and of the American
norms and values. The positioning of the America as the greatest and of the American dream
in political discourse appeared also in the 1983 Reagan’s discourses. The United States were
represented as a God-given right and as a western civilization in need to secure towards the
communism as danger. As described above, authors of post structuralism have worked on the
element of self-identifying in front of the danger. In “Writing Security”, we came upon the
estimation that just as identity is not fixed, the danger is not fixed as well (Campbell, 1998).
This brings upon the conclusion that the identity contours were continuously being re-written,
an evidence of scripting the American identity is as mentioned above the national security
strategy.

17 | P a g e
2. The concept of “Foreign”
Identity politics contains the “foreign” notion, in the case of American foreign policy this
represents the outsiders, everything which is not compatible to the American values
(Campbell, 1998). Other post structuralist authors have viewed foreign policy as a part of the
dangers discourse. They believe that the concept of “foreign” exists solely due to the
existence of “internal” or “domestic” (Kratochwil and Boulder, 1995). On such basis, it is
sustained that the American identity is based on the nexus of internal and external, especially
when the external threats served the purpose of closing the domestic issues during the 70s.
This was realized through the dichotomy self/others and true/false reinforcement (Campbell,
1989). In the case of American foreign policy under Donald Trump, these categories of
representation enable the same logics of American superiority versus the outsiders’
inferiority. The American foreign policy is being re-theorized, the President Trump discourses
have had national identity re-secured and reproduced. Therefore, we would agree on the role
of the foreign policy for taking part in the identity re-projection. In other words, the foreign
policy- political identity relationship has to be taken in consideration (Campbell, 1998).
In the same way, French post structuralists applied a distinction between politics and the
political. The political tends to use the antagonistic approach in the self/others nexus, whereas
the politics attempts to establish an order (Mouffe, 1994). In Neumann it is found a similar
stance: the order part is associated with the “West”, whereas the political symbolism he
relates it to the “East” (Neumann, 1996)
Lastly, the re-theorization of Foreign Policy according to the post structuralism’s view,
stresses out the danger and threat representations, as well as the discursive practices of
exclusion. In this assumption, the self could not exist without the “other” (Norton, 1989). This
logic is emphasized in the analysis Campbell performs on the American national identity and
its connection to the foreign policy channels. The American foreign policy’s role outlooks the
reproduction of the unfixed identity, as the key instruments to realize it is the danger
representation which threaten specifically US (Campbell, 1998)
3. Differences in rewriting security
In Campbell’s perspective, identity embodies many dimensions and it develops within the
space of inside/outside. Post structuralist authors have elaborated on the concept of the border,

18 | P a g e
as the boundary for identification of the identity (Campbell, 1998). In President’s Trump
discourse, the border has a special attention for example regarding the immigration crisis in
the Southern border with Mexico. We recognize that the external borders define the existence
of the internal identity. This constitutes a major reason for the foreign policy to rely on the
fear representation of the border. Post structuralism as a theoretical conceptualization has
assessed the national identity on the basis of binary oppositions. The use of keywords which
have a negative valence like “barbarians” was present in many discourses, from Reagan
administration defining terrorism as barbarians, to President Trump on declaring law and
order restoration speech in May 2016. Trump addressed the threats coming from ISIS and
described again on what side America stands, on the “civilized” self4
. This discourse plays a
vital role in reproducing the American identity in the foreign policy. We would argue that this
outlines the morality aspect of the identity.
In the American political perspective, the ethics and morality of good and evil, right and
wrong have accompanied not only the foreign policy discourses but these are references of
judgment system for each American. The American identity has been founded by institutions
and norms from the Constitutions, but also from the Judeo-Christian religious traditions
(Horowitz, 2013). In all these political debates these elements are revitalized, re-projected
and re-positioned as crucial values on which American society exists. This is the core that
constitutes the American identity, the idea that they stand on the right, good and great side,
whereas just as post structuralism assumes on the other side: the “uncivilized”, “barbarians at
the gate”.
As remarked before, post structuralism believes on the power of discourse and in the concept
that the representation of danger and its articulation are substantial for the describing the
relation “us” vs. “others”.
The American foreign policy has been involved in such discourse with high intensity and
traces are found since the Cold War, when it implemented the psychological view of West
and East. The existence of an enemy is indispensable for setting the internal boundaries of the
identity and for creating an identity politics.
4
Remarks made by Trump at his acceptance speech, July, 2016

19 | P a g e
Since the Cold War has ended, in the American foreign policy can be seen a replacement of
the enemies (Kennan, 1993). The end of communism marked a reconfiguration of the internal
and external discursive practices which is linked to the foreign policy. In the process of re-
describing West vs East, new threats were articulated. Despite this, the stance is the same:
fighting the depicted “evil” for the US (Campbell, 1998). In rewriting security, another danger
was the “war on drugs” which was pronounced as a security threat from Reagan
administration, to nowadays Trump. It served to remodel the American foreign policy and to
declare what is truly American and what is not. As well as in redefining the boundaries of
national identity between home and abroad. This is represented as cause for fighting drug
criminality which imperil the American values of life, liberty and law and order.
The Trump administration is calling a new war on drugs, documented both by the Trump
speeches and discourse on building a wall with Mexico to prevent illegal immigration and
drug cartels flowing into the country, as well as the increase of spending for military capacity
and border patrol institutions like ICE. With his quote: “More Americans will die from drugs
this year than were killed in the entire Vietnam War”5
in January8, 2019 Donald Trump
addressed the drug crime by articulating it as a danger and security threat for the sovereignty
and life of the American people. We could argue that implications of this new danger
representation in re-writing security, will be seen in the context of the American foreign
policy as well. Therefore, in the case of illegal immigration, wall building, national
emergence declaration, in all these events the Trump administration’s political discourse is
applying the “Us” vis-a-vis “others” technique to legitimize the foreign policy practices.
3. Methodology and Discourse Analysis
Based on the discourse theoretical framework, I will conduct a discourse analysis of Donald
Trump’s discourse and analyze how this is reflecting in the American Foreign Policy and key
security issues. I have particularly looked for three main elements: the self-representation,
5
Remarks made by President Trump on Immigration and Democratic response, January 8, 2019

20 | P a g e
the representation of Others and the by-product of this discourse: the foreign policy practice.
Firstly, the research has focused on understanding how exactly the Self is constructed, how is
it served to the public and what precisely constitutes the American national identity, the core
values and how are these re-constructed into the foreign policy. Secondly, how the Others are
displayed, in what meanings and keywords and relying to which means of differentiation.
Finally, how this process affects in delivering the foreign policy in practice. To support the
main argument, the study it sustained on speeches and discourse analysis of Trump’s
administration generally, and on the President specifically. Lastly, it has been found strong
evidence to support the argument that national identity is profoundly reconstructed through
Trump’s discourse, and this has been reflected in the American foreign policy.
The role of Discourse
A discourse can be defined as a ‘cohesive ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorizations
about a specific object that frame that object in a certain way and, therefore, delimit the
possibilities for action in relation to it’ (Epstein 2008: 2). Discourses are always formed in
relation to other discourses (Howarth 2000: 103), and it is the interaction between the
discourses that forms a debate. Hence, the discourse represents a system of meaning, on the
ground of which influences on actions. A cardinal contribution of poststructuralist discourse
theory, just as referred in the theory section, is that all meaning is constructed in discourse
(Hansen 2006: 16; Marttila 2016: 19 – 23). Moreover, (Howarth 1998: 281) argued that the
function of discourse analysis is to display the producing, evolving and change of the meaning
through discourse. According to (Milliken 1999: 229) discursive power is seen as the power
to confer meaning by extension, to dictate which tangible practices count as valid, normal,
commonsensical, and which ones do not. So, it could be understood as a concealer of specific
unnatural meanings and highlighting other meanings as true ones. In this context, the
discourse truly affects to the socially perceived reality, being structure of temporary fixed
meanings, people associate highly to it (Howarth 2000: 131; Epstein 2013). In such
perspective, the discursive power influenced very much in re-projecting the American
national identity through the doctrines of Donald Trump.
The very constituency of American Exceptionalism which derives from the American
Constitution served as a key meaning, the pattern which the society has to rely on and
therefore vote and support. The primary meanings of: “” Life, Liberty and Pursuit of

21 | P a g e
Happiness” stands as the socio-economic program of every daily life program of an American.
On the other hand, the meaning of “We the People”, is used as a legitimization for following
only that option that empowers the society. Throughout the official statements and the social
media tweets, we can acknowledge that the whole “MAGA” is in fact built on the American
Exceptionalism and values of national identity, so deconstructing MAGA is principally,
deconstructing the American Constitution. To support this argument, we can recall Derrida
who believed that the aim of discourse analysis is the deconstruction (Derrida, 1987) of
seemingly universal and unchallengeable discursive hegemonies. On the other hand, in the
Trump’s national identity discourse it is displayed the hegemonic spirit of the US. In relation
to hegemony, (Howarth, 1998) perceived it as a linkage of different identities into a new
common project, a new social order. Hegemony appears as the dominant discourse which has
in its core temporarily fixed meanings, so that this discourse eclipses other views by turning
them into completely absent.
The process of sedimentation of a discourse by some authors should include the exclusion of
the meanings, identities, and practices which are deemed incompatible with the national one
(Laclau 1990; Howarth 2010). On such basis, it can be argued that the Donald Trump’s
discourse on the American Foreign policy is driven by strong meanings, it reflects the
dominant discourse of “Making America First” and clearly it supports the hegemony of the
USA in all economic, international relations and foreign policy included.
Trump as change producer in identity discourse
Additionally, the analysis of discourse could be elaborated based on dislocation and change.
The dominance of the Trump discourse can be related to the national discourse and as a
securitization speech act. In this research, it is stressed the power provoked by Donald
Trump’s political personality and the effects in American foreign policy. However, it is
difficult that the dominant discourse should dominate ubiquitously all the meanings and how
they are perceived socially. In (Hansen, 2006) this is called “the instability” of the discourse
façade. This brings upon the notion of dislocation, which refers to a critical juncture where a
discourse fails to account for, explain or domesticate an unforeseen event through its own
logics (Torfing, 2005). Furthermore, dislocations are depicted as ‘events that cannot be

22 | P a g e
symbolized by an existent discursive order, and thus function to disrupt that order’ (Howarth,
2000).
While analyzing articles and books on the discourse operated by Trump, it can be come across
to a reference of renewing the American foreign policy. It is this study’s understanding, that
the discourse triggered by the Trump’s focus on renewing trade deals, retrieving from
multilateral agreements has brought upon two major consequences: firstly, internally has both
divided the social perception and unified followers who waited for policy changes. Secondly,
on the external lenses, the discourse of Trump on the American position worldwide has
certainly been contested. The case of EU and USA clash on many economic agreement and
steel taxes, backlashed the initiatives from Trump administration for non- discriminatory
tariffs over American products. This discourse produced change not only in economic
outcome, but also it got capitalized as a logical consistent subject.
3.1. Methodology aspects
The aim of this section is to provide the answer to the research question on to what extent
discourse analysis exploits identity in the case of “MAGA” discourse of President Trump.
Discourse Analysis- is a “form of qualitative analysis that focuses in linguistic forms of
communication (Lamont 2015). This method has been chosen because proves best the
argument of the role of national identity in the American foreign policy. The discourse
analysis is based on five main pilasters.
1.Identifying the scope of the discourse: The scope of the discourse analysis is to provide
an answer to the research questions of how and to what extent the national identity discourse
is reflected in the American foreign policy under Trump presidency. In order to reach the
discourse analysis scope, the thesis has analyzed and been relying in these main sources.
Primary data:
 Official Speeches of President Trump- 15 official speeches and statements of
President Trump have been analyzed from year 2016 in which he commented about
the American foreign policy, up to March 26, 2019. This source has been accessed on
transcripts from the White house speech archives and more than 20 webpages which

23 | P a g e
included the video images of the speeches as well. There has been an examination of
President Trump’s speeches in many moments, since the elections, victory speech and
inauguration as well as in different phases of the American foreign policy elaboration.
In this attempt, a very detailed and specific analysis of the language has been
executed. Likewise, analyzing references of national identity in terms of values,
concepts and of the American foreign policy affiliation to the American national
identity both during Trump’s presidency. This broad overview of the main and
particular political discourses made by the President Trump serve to fulfill the
research objective of the emphasis of national identity discourse and tracing its impact
over the American foreign policy.
 Twitter analysis of Trump’s personal tweets- The analysis of discourse has embraced
the use of Twitter as the most intensive social media. Tweets are examined from the
beginning of 2017 up to March 26, 2019. In more than 3192 tweets, we tried to focus
on the most relevant ones which embraced the study purpose. Outlining the keywords
and references of national identity and especially the excessive elaboration of MAGA,
was the main objective in analyzing these sources. The analysis is based on statistics
related to the most tweeted theme and providing a word cloud of the most symbolic
dominant words in Trump’s discourse.
Secondary data:
To fulfill the purpose of this study the discourse analysis has been focused on secondary data
sources as well.
 National Security Strategy- The National Security Strategy (NSS) as a document
prepared by the executive government of the United States highlights the essential
national security issues and shows how the administration strategies in dealing with
them. For this study, we have used the NSS of 2006 produced by Bush Presidency, the
NSS 2015 during Obama years, and most importantly the NSS 2017 elaborated by
Trump administration. Accessed at (White House.gov) online archives, the chief
objectives were two: firstly, analyzing how national identity was implemented in the
national security. Secondly, connect this evidence to the Trump’s discourse on the
foreign policy and its implementation.

24 | P a g e
 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)- accessed at the department of defense online
archive. This is a document of the National Defense Strategy, assessing threats,
challenges and both strategies and counter-reactions to provide a secure United States.
The QDR of 2018 during Trump administration is being evaluated through the lenses
of the impact of the securitization, military spending discourses and how these
references elaborated through the Trump political discourse, actually are reflected in
the US defense strategies. The conclusion of these findings is that there is a connection
between the discursive practices, foreign policy and the national identity security.
 Books, articles and reference authors on the USA Foreign policy under Donald
Trump presidency- in this thesis the role of academic books and sources is vital to
help us understand the phenomena in big picture. Academic sources used are selected
on a wide range of the most important contributors in the US foreign policy field.
Efforts were made to provide a balanced coverage of positive and negative evaluations
over the Trumps’ discourse and the foreign policy he is conducting. Articles and
journals are accessed through online JStor, EBSCO and Cambrige core e-books.
Nevertheless, Brooking Institutions reports and several prestigious e-portals like
Tailor& Francis online and Routledge publications. For more details, they will be
represented in the reference section.
2. In conducting discourse analysis the official speeches are selected particularly in
key moments of the American foreign policy like: the MAGA doctrine proclamation, North
Korea Summit, Iran deal withdrawal, building Wall speech, Isis remarks and counter
terrorism and Immigration related speeches for national emergency. The main narrative will
be estimated and especially how President Trump extends his concern and clearly underlines
the main reason to reconstruct the American identity in the foreign policy discourses.
Moreover, it has been looked for counter-narratives, the contrary voices based on the
reactions of the Democrat opposition, so as to calibrate both views regarding the Immigration
crisis and the unilateral foreign policy practices. To such context, the American foreign
practices result to be very unpredictable from the previous administrations.
The discourse of Trump in putting America First has revitalized the hegemony in the practices
of American influence in Middle East, from relations with Jerusalem and reinforcing the
concept of American partnership against the Israel’s enemies. In this perspective, the

25 | P a g e
American foreign policies followed by Trump especially in the Middle East region rely
strongly on post structuralist view of danger representations and highlighting the “others” to
accentuate the American dominance even more.
For instance, in the inauguration speech of January 20, 2017,6
it is obviously displayed the
whole credo of “Make America Great Again” thesis as in connection with the national
identity. The discursive power of the language used induced the application of this doctrine in
the Trump’s administration. As the speech elaborates on the” joining of the great national
effort to rebuild our country and determine the new course of America”, the keyword
“national” tends to pave the way towards foundation of a national cohesion in legitimizing
the “MAGA” legacy. Throughout the speech, the extents in which discourse is correlated with
identity is intense. The role which the discourse performs in generating a new national vision
and viewpoint on America and its role in the world is supported by the President’s quote:
“new vision will govern our land, from this day forward, it's going to be only America first.
America first“.
As a result, there are two main dimensions of the national identity discourse to be considered:
the historical or the cultural one, based on American values and American cultural norms ;
and the reliegious one, based on the role of faith as an ethical and social norm of the
American identity. Referring to the Bible, the dicosurse deepens on common solidarity as a
value and unification to make America unstoppable. Promoting the mutual care for each
individual and a wealthier economic agenda of : „buy American, and hire American“, to the
other aspect of security as a national interest in „make America safe again“. The discourse
peaked at the essential sentence of „Make America Great Again“
On such basis, another substantial proclamation to the role of the national identity is seen in
the following citing:” A new national pride will stir our souls, lift our sights and heal our
divisions” The political discourse of President Trump highlights the past remembrance of
soldiers and patriots who fought for protecting America and what he calls: “a glorious
freedom and great American flag”. The reference of the historic and cultural background
embodies the purpose to build a new bridge with the public audience, as well as solidifies the
“us” identity towards past history.
6
Remarks made by President Trump in the inauguration speech, January 20, 2017

26 | P a g e
Based on the post structuralism scholarship approaches, the national identity needs to be
produced and re-produces in an ongoing basis throughout the foreign policy. It seems like the
same function is providing this discourse of President Trump. The fact that both internal and
external threats are omnipresent in the political discourse of American foreign policy, stands
as a renewed update of “a birth certificate of the USA” and identity matters (Campbell, 1998).
In the case of MAGA, the power and depth of discourse penetrates in to the national identity
very existential dimension. Likewise, the post-structuralist Campbell in Writing Security
1998, considers the American foreign policy practices intrinsically connected to the spiritual
dimension of American national identity. Moreover, the American foreign policy constitutes
the internal need for danger representation, since the Cold War. We would agree with this
argument that this war impacted in the re-production of American identity, by placing the
Soviet Union as the danger, threat and “the other”.
3. Looking to understand the meaning of the American national identity in the 21st
century
applied by Trump’s discourse as the President of United States, based on the very core of
American Exceptionalism. This study depended on a deep and wide balanced evaluation of
the President’s discourse. For example, on the reviewing of the role of USA in NATO and
increasing military spending, the discourse empowers the unilateralism of USA, referring to
the American culture and its norms of freedom and democracy as a hallmark. The projection
of the national identity begins on the strong victories achieved by the American dominance in
history, from the WWII triumph over Nazism, to the defying of the Soviet Union during the
Cold War. Evidence of this can be found for instance in Donald Trump’s speech in the
beginning of his presidency.
The power of the language used in official speeches into re-projecting the American identity,
it helps to reinforce the sediment identity layers even more, by creating a legitimization for
the foreign policy practices. The main discourse of the language used tends to produce and
reproduce actively the image of the American national identity, as a world leader, a
superpower in all spheres and feeds the legacy of MAGA. The crucial motives displayed are
therefore related to the American people, goes back into the discourse which targets the
individual, the person, the average American of all background. This leads us to believe that
these measures turned out to be highly effective in Trump’s management of American foreign
policy as well. Through creating cohesion domestically, the role of USA would be more
compact and efficient externally. Therefore, the language of putting American interest first, is
very intense and drives the rational realistic strategy of domination for getting the best deals

27 | P a g e
out of the table. The discourse’s focus and the intensity advantaged the acceptance of Trump
and his legitimacy domestically. Nevertheless, the case of the border building relates more to
an internal matter rather than an American foreign policy.
4.Investigating for main keywords and how were those meanings like national identity
represented in the American foreign policy. As sustained by Mr. Trump speeches, the role of
the USA in world has to be primary that of a leading economic, military and political power.
A power which he stresses out to come out of the great American nation, the American
identity and American values. In our understanding this is a dynamic process of
reconstructing the national identity externally as well. In order to boost the national identity, a
fundamental purpose of national identity has to be declared, which in the American culture is
related to the values of liberty, integrity and freedom of individual. In juxtaposition with the
Cold War perception of Soviet Union as slavery, barbaric and violent (Campbell, 1998)
5. As to conduct this discourse analysis research, it has been studied the impact of the
American national identity discourse in matters of national security. These influences in
broadening the spectrum of understanding of the event via the discourse produced again
looking for context and reading between the lines of rephrasing the role of Americanism in
Trump’s foreign policies. In this thesis’s pursuit of interpretation of the role of national
identity in politics, there are reasons to believe that President Trump remodeled the American
policies through applying the discourse of America first. A clear consequence of this is the U-
turn from Obama’s multilateralism in a new era of American unilateral supremacy.
At this point, I need to mention some limitations of this work. The first limitation lies in the
fact that I analyze only discourses and debates falling within the Donald Trump’s presidency
as to evaluate the intensity of the national identity representation, rather than a more general
American discourse. The second limitation consists of excluding the other domestic debates
and focusing exclusively on the matters of foreign policy. The third limitation comprises the
immense data on the American foreign policy, which from one hand boosted this research, on
the other influenced to be very strategic and precise to provide answers to the research
questions. Lastly, a limitation stems from the author’s preference for the American national
identity and American foreign policy. Nevertheless, I believe that these limitations can be
overcome with a rigorous methodology and sound theoretical basis.

28 | P a g e
4. Trump Speeches Analysis
The choice of discourse analysis as the core methodology of the study, resulted efficient
because it can reveal the meaning of American national identity as in relation with the Trump
official speeches. While examining President’s Trump speeches context, we can unmistakably
observe the quest for national identity. The MAGA Doctrine is an unshakable manifesto of
the American identity in the identity politics of the 21st
century. Throughout the application of
American Foreign Policy, many constitutive cultural historic elements are found in the speech
context. While assessing them, below aspects are met:
Firstly, analyzed the discourse to define meanings based on the USA national identity
structure. According to this, the discourse has to be understood through differentiation. In this
research, it can be pointed out that the ISIS, immigrants or Iran for instance are labelled as
threats, aggressive, invasive and injustice features association. These meanings constituted
“the others”, whereas the Americans refer to themselves as free, strong and independent
people. The differentiation is implemented via the use of the binary opposition and the
continuous elaboration of the putting “America first”, a rhetoric evoking the economic power,
productive and manufacturing, the protection of the American worker also through reviewing
economic deals and treaties and cutting taxes in different industries. Moreover, the “America
First” targets the military and defense surge of expenditures and intelligence for protecting the
US homeland and stability interests in different world regions.
Secondly, the representation of “us” and the “others” tempo is accelerating even more since
the reviewing of NAFTA deal and then efforts to reconsider the role of USA in NATO. The
antagonism is deepening towards Iran as a state sponsor to terrorism in the Middle East, as
well as towards China in imposing steel tariffs. The official speeches of President Trump
continuously are producing much more differentiation hence pushing into a further projection
of American national identity and self-image in the foreign policy practices.
In conducting this discourse analysis, speeches related to the timeline of Donald Trump
presidency since his election in 2016 in the office and ongoing will be ascertained. Based on
the reactions and counter-reactions or consequences to Mr. Trump speeches, this research
would tend to outline the dominant narratives which convey a particular message. On such
basis, in the overall narrative there is a clear context on the American sovereignty, American

29 | P a g e
border protection and re-establishing the national security when referring to external threats
like illegal immigration, drugs or terrorism, which becomes a legitimization for leading
foreign policies aligned by this vision.
Additionally, the primary data identified that the American national identity reference is
actually coproducing change in foreign policy discourse, as it places the American part in
higher psychological advantages. Although some authors consider Trump policies as in the
same trajectory of Obama’s policies for example in Asia. According to (Kolmaš and
Kolmašová, 2019) a “pivot “to Asia never existed eveen before Trump’s Asian strategy. But
also, the case of North Korea is an excellent example of application of MAGA, not only to de-
nuclearize the Korean peninsula, but also to reshape the American role in Asia.
Another remarkable component of American national discourse in the foreign policy is the
citing of the role of American allies and partners in all the endeavors of the American foreign
policy. This came as a clear strategy on finding common purposes and strategies for fighting
the Isis, when Trump was speaking to the leaders of Arab countries urging to launch an
intensive campaign against their internal terrorism and groups. In previous administrations,
the team work of regional leader countries and the American cooperation turned out to be a
strategic success solution to crisis. However, the discourse of President Trump in such case
has a straightforward targeting, as it imposed a borderline between the real allies to US and
those Arab countries7
who could still have double standard towards harboring terroristic
groups.
Yet again, it can be viewed the discourse frequency of the USA role as a leader and the
national security: “first priority is always the safety and security of our citizens”. Strong
references are repeatedly connected to the 9/11 events and what the President estimated as”
America’s pursuit of shared interest and common security” In our view, the whole
securitization process of terrorism has been evolved through this speech acts of Donald
Trump. Components like offering cooperation, sharing mutual visions, and placing the Arab
countries in front of a strategic choice for their future security and regional stability served to
drive a behavior in them. Therefore, in such case again it is obvious that the national identity
is co-producing foreign policy outcomes.
7
The White House, Remarks made by President Trump President Trump’s Speech to the Arab Islamic American
Summit, May 21, 2017

30 | P a g e
In most of declaration and speeches of Trump, it could be detected the firm reference of the
identity politics, of the American allegiance to neoliberal norms. Another feature coming
from the discourse implications is that the its materialization into foreign policy practices has
revealed to be unforeseeable in comparison with the previous administrations. To support this,
It can be referred to the moving of the American Embassy in Jerusalem in May 14th
, 20188
. In
this speech there is a distinct continuity of the USA role in the Middle East with the previous
administrations. In theoretical terms, the concepts and American values remain the same:
ensure peace stability, prosperity in the region as well.
Despite this, no any other American President had tried to legitimize the move from Tel Aviv
to Jerusalem of the American Embassy. This event has triggered interpretations and
judgments against the USA partial role in the region as the closest partner of Israel. This can
be read through the prism of identity politics. In addition, this represents a political action
which carries a heavy dose of American national identity within and identity politics. This is
illustrated by the President Trump’s assessing that this action is: “in the best interests of the
United States of America and the pursuit of peace between Israel and the Palestinians”. The
channels of the foreign policy and its implementations therefore are obliged to mirror the
America First discourse and the United States interest first and foremost in the region.
Based on the analysis above, Donald Trump’s foreign policy is in much more unpredictable
than other administrations before. Three main elements affect in this: firstly, the Donald
Trump’s personality coming from a business background therefore considering political
momentum as a rational business deal; secondly, the reshaping of the conservative viewpoints
of Republican support domestically as to dismantle many inefficient policies of Obama and
his multilateral perspective. Thirdly, the increase of jihadism and terroristic attacks on Europe
and worldwide have influenced altogether to perceive external threats of illegal immigration
on the Southern border crisis. Therefore, as in extreme times, extreme measurements are
needed: this reference could be traced in the political discourse of Donald Trump and outlined
in the foreign policy practices as well.
8
Remarks made by President Trump on recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Dec 6, 2017

31 | P a g e
The American foreign policy unpredictability is higher, faster and the national identity
discourse is also developing very dynamically to both re-inforce the American values, as well
as foster identity in a prompt American foreign policy. Building confidence of American
people into a higher efficient pro-American life foreign policy has defined the Trump’s
administration practices throughout this time frame. The case of this was the withdrawal from
Iran deal, another unprecedented foreign policy derail from the previous Obama
administration
By calling the Iranian regime as “a leading state sponsor of terror”9
the discourse offered
economic, military and security aims to motivate the withdrawal. In this speech as well, we
have found strong evidence of danger representations and articulation of terrorism which
threatens the United States existence. The legitimation of the retrieval was motivated by
protecting the integrity, sovereignty and lives of American people both in homeland as in
Middle East in Israel and other regions where there is American military presence.
In such context, the key driver motivators for this withdrawal is the protecting the life of the
American citizens from Iran’s threat of nuclear weapons. Cutting off the leverage of money
from USA to Iran an also sending a strong message to the Middle Eastern region and to the
world. Also sending a message to the partners to choose the American economy patterns and
leadership in the region, embraces a historic getting out of Iran deal as an application of
identity politics. This has led us to believe that the national identity discourse is existential for
the American foreign policy during Trump’s presidency. The identity politics has influenced
in reconstructing the national image of United States in foreign policy practices as well.
Lastly, as President Trump announced during his speech in April 13th
, 201810
Regarding the
air strikes in Syria” “the United States is doing what is necessary to protect the American
people” The foreign policy in the Middle East region is influenced by the impact of the
political discourse and most importantly from the decision points of Trump’s administration
in front of ensuring freedom and security for the region. In reference to what the President
implied as the role of Americans in the region looks like a complex one, because from one
side the USA is interested in stability, from the other he states that:”no amount of American
blood or treasure can produce lasting peace and security in the Middle East “. This can be
9
Remarks made by Trump on condemning Iran, State of The Union Speech, Feb 6, 2019
10
Remarks made by President Trump announced that the U.S. conducted a military strike against the Syrian
government in response to suspected chemical attack, April 13, 2018

32 | P a g e
read this as an identiy politics, preserving the American lives and spiritual constitution of the
American values. Additinally, it implies a delegation of all the action responsibilites tot he
countries in the region to promote dialoge and pursue common aspiration sofr peace and
security. The key meaning“ American blood“ of course is a strong connotation to the national
identity and patriotism colors found in the foreign policy discourse to the fullest extent.
Through the help of discourse analysis, we can realize how the foreign policy discourse is
interpreted and its meaning being constructed in resemblance with the American national
identity embodiment. The discourse produced itself served this purpose (to convey the
message of national identity through the channel of foreign policy). As implementing the
American foreign policies in many regions and worldwide, the Trump’s presidency represents
a very interesting case of discontinuity which produced change in how the national identity
was again accustomed for serving the foreign policy purpose. Upholding to the core values of
American Exceptionalism has been re-projected more powerfully throughout the “Making
America Great Again” doctrine into the foreign policy implementation.
Documentaries, media sources and YouTube documentaries on many historic decision-
making moments regarding the foreign policy development have helped to elaborate a more
substantial analysis. These have influenced to elaborate a broader understanding of the
developments and scope of American foreign policy. On the other hand, in discourse analysis
the study tended to outline the basis of constitutive relations- what constituted the national
identity and its relationship with the foreign policy.
Based on the above findings, appointing some of the most crucial moments of national
identity discourse to investigate its meaning in the American foreign policy during Trump’s
presidency is also beneficial. In Donald Trump’s speech on Foreign Policy in April 27, 2016
11
(candidate for President), it is ascertained the role of national identity as a pillar for the
American foreign policy. According to this speech a new Foreign Policy direction was
proclaimed which is based: “upon American interests and the shared interests of allies”.
The American interests are placed on the primary center by an elaborated discursive language
which enhances the need for the new American Foreign policy for future challenges. In his
language, President Trump displays America First as his legacy, as well as the major
overriding theme of his administration. Post structuralist authors assume that the discourse is
11
Remarks of Donald Trump on Foreign Policy, April 27, 2016

33 | P a g e
associated with the endangerment element, which serves to stress the national identity on the
nexus “us” and “others”. (Campbell, 1998) When President Trump refers to foreign policy
and American security, he states replacing of ideology with strategy, chaos with peace.
Therefore, this is a process of securing the “America First” through differentiation,
classification and exactly this helps to identify even more the national identity.
The role of a powerful foreign policy is ascertained to be on the basis of peace and prosperity
and create world stability which are continuous neoliberal norms of the American foreign
policy. Furthermore, the discourse is developed on the mechanisms of previous historic
momentum from WWII and represented as a “savior of the world from communism”. This
language inclines to reconfigure national identity as an unavoidable dimension of being. It
would be argued that when Donald Trump discursively addresses the necessity for a new
visionary American foreign policy, he uses categories of danger, state, identity and modes
which establish contours of American national identity and the positive correlation with the
foreign policy. Moreover, the speech contains criticism practice, for instance the criticism of
Iraq failed policies and delineating the weaknesses of Obama’s foreign policies, served to
justify the birth of a new stronger and more visionary American foreign policy.
The discourse analysis is focused in understanding how the language constituted and
produced the need to react unilaterally, exceptionally and dominantly in external American
foreign policy.12
In the speech of “State of the Union” in February 6th
, 2019, the discourse
language is concentrated in two main areas: foreign policy and immigration. The
representation of danger is delivered by President Trump indicating the crisis on the Southern
border: “protect our homeland and secure our very dangerous southern border." The
existence of a security threat is derived in such case by the illegal immigration coming from
the border with Mexico. Found in the previous administrations discourses as well, the in
history of the American national identity, there have been exclusions and inclusion techniques
implemented in the foreign policy. Therefore, the role of the danger representation in this
speech is drawing the inferiority and superiority lines. In our understanding, accentuating the
12
Remarks made by President Trump on domestic and foreign policy, February 6, 2019

34 | P a g e
risks of illegal immigration, drugs and cartels found in this speech point at the purpose of
sustaining the notion of American sovereignty and homeland security.
The main meaning of this discourses is obtaining the public credibility that this is indeed an
external threat and as a consequence an immediate measure is needed. The legitimacy of
building the wall in such case: „ more law enforcement on drugs and child smuggling and a
wall, to secure “. Once again it is verified that America’s foreign policy practices focus on
the identity issues and identity differences too. The articulation on foreign policy by President
Trump in this speech attached reviewing the North Korea situation as in the realm of a
historical juncture, as the context used reassures the American optimism towards this issue.
Besides this, the political discourse would be connected with geopolitics of security. From
one hand, we have the dominance of United States worldwide, from another the fragility of
negotiations and agreement is articulated as a risk for the USA regional security. As many
authors sustain, the American identity was elaborated on the borders of this new cultural
mode in difference with the “otherness’ of the Old world. Therefore, in this speech, the
American spatial identity overpasses old policy practices like the one of North Korea. It is
observed a clarity and precision of word use to construct the American dominance for
example in relation to China: “steeling American jobs, technology” which fuels the alternative
for a new China Trade deal, as well as a redefinition of the American national identity
throughout the hallmark of “out innovate and outspend others”.
Another key speech in the discourse analysis of national identity under Donald Trump
presidency is the Iran deal withdrawal speech on May 8, 2018. The main motive of this
withdrawal is the risk that Iran constitutes for the United States itself, its allies in the region
and worldwide. Explained as: “exporter of dangerous missiles, fuels conflict across the
Middle East, and supports terrorist proxies and militias such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the
Taliban, and al-Qaeda”13
This reference is expressed as the boundaries of good and evil or
boundaries of inside and outside. In the foreign policy discourse, American identity relies in
the realm of ethical norms and pro-life supporter. Yet again, in the examination of the
identity, it can be distinguished the security dilemmas, which turn out to be very tangible in
the political discourse.
13
RemarksmadebyPresidentTrumponWithdrawingfromtheIranDeal,May8,2018

35 | P a g e
Another perspective to take in consideration, is that in the case of the USA, the representation
of the role of the American culture as excellent, as supporter of freedom and democracy
standards worldwide, reinforces even more the national identity. In such aspect, it is believed
that the discourse performs the function of re-production of the national identity in the foreign
policy. Citing security issues: “Iran has bombed American embassies and military
installations, murdered hundreds of American service members, and kidnapped, imprisoned,
and tortured American citizens”
On such basis, the study deduces on the threats posed to USA and Israel as its main ally in the
region. Furthermore, the deal is associated with the existential threat, which destabilized the
Unites States political and economic investment in the region. The significance of foreign
policy product of blocking terrorist activities in the Middle East is correlated with the
American national values of peace and prosperity. As America is considered the land of free
people, the discourse concludes with: „America will not be held hostage “. This symbol of
“hostage” plays an extraordinary role in amplifying the danger, referring to something that
never existed before like an occupied country. Just as the history of USA is unique, a modern
country born out of freedom and in which the spatial identity perseveres because of the
continuity of the values and discourse.
Additionally, at the Vietnam Summit in Feb 28, 2019 between USA and North Korea the
outcome was no agreement after productive constructive meeting. The President Trump’s
main discourse was on:” reducing the risk for American people14
” form the North Korea
nuclear threats. The American foreign policy practices in North Korea are founded on
economic sanctions and preparing the deal between two parties. In this pattern, the risk of
North Korea remains to justify the American “others” although the de-nuclearization is an
ongoing process. Trump’s remark of: “we had to walk away from that”, in our view
illustrates the character of American deals which is that of gaining the best unilateral deal for
the USA in every negotiation. Similarly, as in Cold War, the expression of security remains a
key driver for the American foreign policy. However, based on the discourse analysis we can
agree that: firstly, that the American foreign policy is pursuing new identity boundaries and
14
Remarks made by President Trump, North Korea summit press conference in Vietnam, Feb 28, 2019

36 | P a g e
secondly, that the identity symbolism is more powerful in ethical boundaries rather than
simply on state territorial ones.
To sum up, during the speech at the Department of Homeland Security, President Trump
announced his executive order to begin the construction of a Mexico border wall on Jan 25,
2017. There are strong ties of this political discourse of the borders and wall with the
reflections on the foreign policy mindset as well. The quote: “A nation without borders is not
a nation” served to drive action in deterring illegal immigration, disrupting violent cartels and
getting the criminals out of USA. The national identity discourse resembles to the significance
of protecting the lives of the American people- victim families suffering deaths and crimes of
illegal immigrants too.
Finally, one of the key speeches in reference to the State of emergency that Trump
administration wanted to declare is delivered in February 16th
, 2019. This discourse is rich
with symbolic figures of national identity, keywords and securitization acts.15
The very existence and implementation of “Make America Great Again” is presented to be
harmed by illegal immigration, drugs and human trafficking penetrating the country through
the Mexico border. The language use involves terms as: „ invasion of drugs, invasion of
gangs, invasion of people“ In a thorough analysis, the keyword invasion aligns the binary
opposition of clashes of civilisation, or accentuates the contrast between the „civlized“ and
the „barbaric“ portrayed as illegal immigration. Despite this, the discourse rolls over the
institutions like ICE and border patrol who are a part of the law enforcement and protection of
the homeland security and criticiez by the media. In many references, we see that the media
itself, CNN or other libral ones are denoted like“ fake news“ and a risk or threat itself tot eh
national security.
Concluding, the discourse analysis of the official statements and selceted speeches verifies
that the national identity is constantly re-written via foreign policies. Identity limits are
enabled, activated in a constant relation with the discursive practices. We have proven the
arguments of the thesis. Also, it has been evaluated the danger representation within the
speeches and displayed the importance of the „others “in defining the national identity.
15
The White House, Remarks by President Trump on the National Security and Humanitarian Crisis on our
Southern Border, February 15, 2019

37 | P a g e
Reassuming, there are strong evocations of the myth of the „frontier “, where the border is the
bottom line of chaos and order, or barbaric and „civilization “develops (frequently in his
speeches). In the Trump’s case, throughout discursive practices, the US identity is being re-
constructed. Lastly, it can be evaluated that American foreign policy is symbolic and deeply
connected with national identity. The spirit of this identity is constantly re-projected,
reconstructed and re-ignited by the foreign policy discourse.
4.1. Twitter Analysis
The second source of data includes the analysis of the tweets from President Trump. For this a
collection of more than 3191 tweets have been used, from the period July 2017 till March
2019. This analysis intends to outline three main dimensions: first, the evidence of national
identity in the political message; second, how this has been elaborated; third, to what extent
the tweet messages relate to the American foreign policy.
Firstly, the national identity discourse can be traced through the significance of the keywords
like: “America”, “Make America Great Again” and the word “great” turn out to be the most
used ones. The influence of the internal political discourse in the American foreign policy can
be seen in the usage of the “MAGA” as a word. According to the Twitter analytics16
16
Twinomia, March 28, 2019 accessed on https://twitter.com/hashtag/twinomia?src=hash

38 | P a g e
Source: Twitter analytics, tweets analysis of Donald J. Trump
As the data show, the intensity of tweets is high during the period June11 up to March 20,
2019 the total number of tweets reached 3191, or 11.25 tweets daily. The political discourse
and reactions of the President are highlighted by the frequency of his tweets as well.
The role of social media in internal and external politics has increased. As supported by the
graph below, twitter has been used very actively by the President Trump. Moreover, the
retweets as well have affected in stressing the political message further. As a second
important source of the discourse elaborated by Trump, the twitter is supporting the general
discourse of national identity.
The purpose of this intense discourse is to build a bridge with the publics and seek
legitimizing the external policies of his administration. The below graph clearly shows the
intensity of publishing during the period July 2018 up to March 19, 2019, which also matches
with key development of the American foreign policy. The highest peak is reached especially
in November 2018 and March 13, 2019. During this period events like US-China trade war
happened, the talks for a North Korea de-nuclearization and fighting ISIS references become
dominant.

39 | P a g e
Source: Twinomy, analysis of tweets from March 2018 till March 28, 2019
Secondly, the most interesting reference to the national identity is the practice of the “Make
America Great Again”. As per the below analysis, this keyword has been used 57 times
during this study period, and it actually marks the most used significant term. Moreover, the
gap between other keyword representatives and “MAGA” is immense.
Source: Twinomy

40 | P a g e
Thirdly, social medias are playing an increasing role in the political discourse in United
States. As for the discourse which is elaborated by Trump, it is very intensive and specific.
Trump tweets mirror his speeches
Source: word cloud elaborated based on most used hashtags on Twitter, 2018-2019
The use of Twitter by Trump is very wide, highly intense and very frequent. We have
elaborated a word cloud as shown above, based on the most retweeted and keywords the
President has used in social media. The most essential words used are: America, Great,
USA, America First, Fake news, and number one in the ranking is hold by the MAGA
reference.

41 | P a g e
While examining this difference, it is obvious that the usage of “Make America Great Again”
stands as the hallmark of the Trump doctrine’s itself. Both the repetitiveness and frequency
serve to the purpose of pushing forward the national identity in the American foreign policy.
According to Tauberg 17
, the Trump discourse has three main features:
a) Language simplicity. The tags which are used are very simple to be understood by all
levels of intellect and it is directed to all backgrounds.
b) Language Positivity. In the discourse is intensively used the antonyms like: good/ bad,
great/ worst which create polarity of the situation.
c) Language of driving action. In regard to the positioning the national identity discourse at
the very core of the administration, Trump uses verbs to boost action. The verb “make”, or
“keep” in these two tweets example signify the substantial importance of America,
identity and calling for a common all-inclusive action towards this.
Furthermore, the most used adjective is “great”, which in fact it stands as a highlighter of the
“America the greatest”. This reference is correlated with the impact of the identity politics and
how this is mirrored in the political discourse.
17
Tauberg, Analyzing Trump’s Tweets, A Data-Based Analysis of Trump’s Language on Twitter, Oct, 31, 2018

42 | P a g e
Lastly, in the following tweets the discourse points to create s conceptualization of “us” and
“the others”. On one side, the American people represented as exceptional and great, whereas
on the other: Isis and the media as danger representation.
In such case, the elaboration of national
identity discourse influences directly in the
American foreign policy approach. The same
color of discourse targets the media like
Facebook, Twitter etc by calling them “fake
news”. Then, the dangers are securitized via this speech act and MAGA is offered as the sole
alternative that make Americans winners. In all the tweets released, a strong sense of identity
is outlined.
In several cases, in tweets targeting both
internal and external policies, the discourse
relies in accentuating the Trump Doctrine of
Making America Great Again. The tweets tend
to legitimize the foreign policy issues as well as
to serve the Trump’s legacy. The language used
is merely politically correct, on the contrary: it
is very straightforward and polarized. The outcome of the discourse can consequence on
reinforcing the discourse on American identity and on supporting MAGA as a wining agenda.
The Trump tweets display a sense of belongings to a winner category, if the audience
classifies as America First supporter.

43 | P a g e
The Trump discourse is related to the binary oppositon system and the poststructuralist „us“
and „others“. As sustained by (Campbell, 1998) the USA have pursued an identity politics.
Therefore, even on the basis of the social media, in this case the Twitter the national identity
dicosurse is reflected and targets the decison making process of American foreign policy.
By projecting the „wall “mindset to securitize the illegal immigration, by using invasion
semantic and representing danger, Trump tweets ignite action and reaction on the foreign
policy level as well.
Statistics
For this part it is used online service Twitonomy.
Using numerical data, we can get a variety of information, regarding Trump’ Twitter activity.
Tweets posted 3195
Hashtags used 500
Links added 413
User mentions 667
On average Trump makes 6,9 tweets per day. Most tweets per day: 30/9/2017 - 31. Least
tweets per day: 15/4/2017, 8/6/2017, 30/1/2018, 6/5/2018, 28/5/2018 - 0.

44 | P a g e
Use of hashtags
#maga 55 #usa 30
#americafirst 16 #fakenews 15
#taxreform 10 #unga 10
#weeklyadress 8 #hurricaneharvey 8
#lesm 7 #icymi 7
#maga (Make America Great Again), #usa, #americafirst - are the most important parts of
Trump agenda in presidential campaign and during presidency. These are present in every
source of information, coming from the President office.
#taxreform - controversial Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
#unga - speech at UN General Assembly
#icymi - In Case You Missed It
Trump uses hashtags only in cases when he wants to point out specifically the most important
points, regarding his agenda.
Number of links- According to given statistics, the point of simplicity is being proven. Only
in 12% of tweets there is any sort of link. Although the initial text could be split in number of
back to back parts. It means that the point of simplicity is used in Trump’ tweets almost up to
maximum.

45 | P a g e
Using numerical data, we can get a variety of information, regarding Trump’ Twitter activity:
measuring of engagement - “the collective experiences that readers or viewer have with a
media brand”18
Engagement can show us which of President’ tweets created the most reaction
by audience. Reaction can be different. In Twitter it could be measured by the number of
posts’ likes, retweets. Like could mean that person agrees with content of a tweet, retweet
could mean that person is interested in given theme and wants to discuss it with another
people.
18
Mersey, Malthouse and Carter, Engagement with online media, 2010

46 | P a g e
4.2. Volatility of the American national identity
This last section is based on the use of secondary data, reports and academic references in
order to investigate over the national identity and how it has been reflected in government
execution and administration discourse.
The study strived to provide key findings in three main moments: continuities, discontinuities
of the national identity, in this case the USA identity. As well as the American
Exceptionalism as the core of the American psyche. According to this research, it resulted
that: Identity matters in American Foreign policy. To support this, the arguments below serve
as a verification:
American Exceptionalism
Every reference point at the values, shared norms and beliefs that America has to dominate
and has the moral power to sustain the dominance in global economy and the mission of
world peace and freedom protection. The American identity has not experienced fluctuations
in terms of different historic events and administrations, because there is a clear evidence in
the National Security Strategies and National Defense Strategies documents that sustain it.
However, in terms of the projection of the American foreign policy is quintessentially
connected deeply with the domestic policies. Being relying on these main sources, this study
concludes that identity matters in IR. Also, it plays a substantial role in foreign policy. The
American identity and the American Exceptionalism have constituted the American Foreign
Policy simultaneously. George W Bush reconstructed the American identity while
endeavoring 9/11 events as well as the great financial crisis. Donald Trump on the other hand,
is re-projection the American Exceptionalism through the slogan” Make America Great
Again”. They both are using the power of the discourse to redefine the power of America
symbols and values to legitimize the foreign policy.
National Security Strategy discourse
It is identified that the role of the national security is correlated with the American values,
American people and American prosperity. The role of national identity in Trump’s Foreign
policy is quintessential and it is documented in three pillars:

47 | P a g e
1. Protect the American people, homeland and the American way of life. The main slogan
known as MAGA (Make America Great Again) a re-projection of the American
Exceptionalism. Moreover, the use of the national identity is helping the strengthening of the
American foreign policy. So, both the American identity and the American foreign policy co-
constitute each other. In the first pillar the main focus is on the reconstructing the relationship
with the American people. The Trump’s National Security Strategies discourse embrace the
major milestone regarding the immigration and the potential built up of a wall with Mexico to
stop the inflow of illegal immigrants.
2. Promote American Prosperity. In Trump’s discourse agenda there is a lot of reference to:
rebuilding American dream and getting back businesses, tax cut and deregulation and
economic dominance.
3. Peace through strength and advance American Values. This pillar represents the great
compatibility with the Reagan foreign policies. The section of advancing the American values
which display the importance of American Exceptionalism and its ubiquitous connection to
the American National Security strategies and afterwards into the Foreign Policy
implementation.
Trump as Discontinuity
In the national identity discourse of the American core values like business sector, limited
government and entrepreneurship are the substance to the economic dominance. The
preponderance value of the trade deals reconfirms that the putting America and Americans
first is the major national security interest for Trump’s presidency as in “the name of the
people, for the people, by the people”. Based on the national security strategy discourses, we
would argue that that precedents like the TPP withdrawal, Paris climate, Renegotiation of
NAFTA or the Aluminum steel tariff impose, establish the change and discontinuity of the
foreign policy practices during Trump administration. Even though the Donald Trump’s
discourse shares common norms and values like the President George W. Bush: unilateralism,
American Exceptionalism as morality to legitimize the wars like Iraqi Freedom and
Afghanistan; and installing democratic peace regime change in conflict crisis.
The process of projecting the American national identity as a self-reflection of the American
Ego for dominance, has accomplished the highest peaks driven by the non-politically correct

48 | P a g e
Trump’s discourse. Finally, we argue that the American identity has proven to be continuity,
whereas Donald Trump’ influence on national identity discourse can be viewed as a
discontinuity.
5. Review the American Foreign Policy during Trump
In analyzing the American national identity, many authors have argued on the continuity or
discontinuity of the Trump’s foreign policy. Two main factors have been highlighted. The
first, regards the continuity of the Trump foreign policy. Secondly, the American foreign
policy has switched into a new direction which constituted a discontinuity. In many areas, the
foreign policy of Trump is considered as unpredictable. It is believed that this happened due
to the domestic changes and shifts within the United States. The influence of the internal
political discourse can be reflected in the external foreign policy (Macdonald, 2018).
Especially on foreign economic relations, the NAFTA renegotiation or the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) exemplify the rupture from continuity. Furthermore, in the defense aspect,
combating terrorism, fighting ISIS and increasing the US presence in Afghanistan represent
attributes of new shifts that the American foreign policy took under Trump leadership
(Saunders, 2018). The American foreign policy of Donald Trump has shown both signs of
continuity and alterations. The comparison with previous administrations can be elaborated on
the basis of the political discourse as well. For example, in relation to the George W. Bush
administration, the power of the discourse was focused more on the role that America has to
take in the world (Jervis, 2003). In the case of Obama, the American values promotion was
the core of the foreign policy discourse (Lynch and Singh, 2008). In the evaluation of the
foreign policy and its implications, another approach is to identify the institutions and how
norms and processes can constitute the foreign policy practices. According to Newmann, the
process of policy making is based on the constitution and on the institutional way of a certain
tradition that United States have in regard to its goals and purposes. Nevertheless, the decision
points can be changed and certainly the political discourse enables the involvement of the
President’s preferences into creating new shifts (Newmann, 2011).

American Foreign Policy under Donald Trump

American Foreign Policy under Donald Trump

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to American Foreign Policy under Donald Trump

Similar to American Foreign Policy under Donald Trump (15)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

American Foreign Policy under Donald Trump