Donald Trump was elected U.S. president in 2016 with a platform opposing regime change. After four years, his administration attempted to overthrow the Venezuelan regime by violently appointing an unelected puppet Juan Guaido as the “interim president,” covertly continuing President Barack Obama’s efforts to overthrow the Syrian Government, and nearly taking the U.S. to war with Iran through the assassination of top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani. In 2024, Trump was elected again by an even stronger margin on the platform of being a “peacemaker.” The question is: Will this be the moment when a U.S. president truly changes the course of American foreign policy away from regime change wars and toward peace?

The U.S. has conducted hundreds of regime change operations since World War II and has been successful in dozens. However, regime change comes with costs. America’s shrinking share of global economic influence and its overextended military power has led to a reliance on proxy wars, covert operations, and shock and awe wars of aggression. The result: chronic instability, chaos and economic impoverishment, to which Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine and several other nations can attest.

Indeed, Trump has demonstrated a willingness to normalize ties with Russia and work toward a negotiated settlement in Ukraine. However, it’s important to note that despite the influence of rugged individualism over the American psyche, one individual cannot fundamentally transform the character of U.S. foreign policy and there are a litany of signs that Trump is no crusader against regime change.

On Ukraine, Trump has engaged in talks with Russia while maneuvering to shed the responsibility of “security” in the region to NATO’s European member states. U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told NATO in Brussels in February 2025 that the U.S. would focus on the “communist Chinese” who have the “capability and intent to threaten our homeland.” Instead of lasting peace, then, the U.S. under Trump is seeking to pivot away from a lost war in Ukraine and toward what it sees as a bigger imperative: containing the rise of China.

In the Middle East, the Trump administration has made more direct attempts at regime change. Trump approving Israel’s renewed assault on Gaza has shocked the world. The administration has also taken a firm position that the U.S. will play an active role in preventing Hamas from ruling in Gaza in direct violation of the right of Palestinian people to determine their political destinies. Trump’s team has delivered a letter to Iran demanding the Islamic Republic follow the U.S.’ demand to negotiate or face military consequences. To make matters worse, Trump has launched a lengthy military operation against Yemen’s Houthi movement.

Trump’s early foreign policy record indicates a dire need for Americans to understand “regime change” in a deeper way. Yes, regime change means the overthrow of governments, but the overthrow of governments is never without purpose. The purpose is the maintenance and expansion of U.S. imperial domination, and therefore all forms of U.S. interventionism are in a way linked to regime change. While Trump claims not to pursue direct regime change of any particular country, his administration’s foreign policy remains committed to upholding U.S. dominance and the political manipulation required to achieve this.

Trump’s assertion that he will act as a “peacemaker” has thus been challenged just a few months into his presidency. In the months ahead, all eyes must be on a U.S. shift away from direct conflict with Russia and toward addressing the West Asia and Asia Pacific theaters. The goal is to position the U.S. to confront China’s rapid rise and the economic miracle undergirding it. Whatever changes in U.S. foreign policy occur, even positive ones like a possible end to the Ukraine conflict, reflect the American empire coming to a difficult crossroads: either willingly adjust to the reality of a multipolar world where rising Global South countries like Russia and China are influential or wage war until the end. Until the American people stand up en mass to the elites in control of U.S. foreign policy, expect the latter to characterize the foreign policy legacy of Trump 2.0.

The author is an independent journalist and researcher in the U.S. He is a contributing editor to the Black Agenda Report and founding member of the No Cold War international campaign.