Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential elections on November 5 wasn’t good news for most professionals who work in international security. The return of Trump means not only the return of populism to the U.S. foreign policy but also the resumption of an unpredictable foreign policy that could lead to wars.

Although there is no consensus on the exact influence of populism, scholars agree on the baseline that populist leaders watch world order with distrust as a hostile place. They prioritize what they see as the “people’s interest” and anti-elite policies. Trump, as a role model of the populist leader, has promoted policies of economic protectionism, anti-immigration, and unilateralism. These policies are attached to features such as uncertainty and distrust of the foreign policy institutions. This combination may lead to risky situations in today’s anarchic world order.

Trump’s past record serves as a guide to his future conduct.

On June 6, 2017, for instance, Trump tweeted to support the blockade that the Arab quartet (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and Bahrain) had imposed on Qatar for supposedly supporting terrorism. On the same day, the State Department spokesperson didn’t adopt Trump’s position and recognized the Qatari efforts to counter terrorism. Another official talked anonymously to the media to deny that the United States took sides in this crisis. It gradually became clear that State Department, the Department of Defense, and other foreign policy institutions didn’t share Trump’s view on the Arab rift. They also worked hard to change Trump’s position to end this rift as it harmed the U.S. strategic interest and impeded regional Gulf cooperation to face the Iranian threat.

Trump clearly doesn’t consult his foreign policy advisors before expressing his initial responses to international affairs publicly. Trump also may change his position afterward; hence international parties must be cautious about his messages on U.S. policy to avoid misleading impressions.

Trump’s approach didn’t evolve over the course of his first term. On October 24, 2020, Trump called the Sudanese prime minister to congratulate him on the normalization of relations between Sudan and Israel. Trump raised an unexpected topic during this call which was the trilateral dispute between Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan on the building of the Ethiopian Grand Renaissance Dam (GERD.) He suggested that Egypt might “blow up” the GERD if there were no solution to this dispute. Trump’s administration was frustrated after the last-minute Ethiopian withdrawal from the negotiations brokered by the U.S. secretary of treasury in February 2020 to reach an agreement on the Blue Nile water share. Ethiopia accused Trump of inciting war. This is another example of how Trump has sent dangerous messages internationally.

Trump also put the Middle East on the edge of a war between the United States and Iran in 2020 after the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC.) The operation was conducted as a preemptive strike to prevent an “imminent attack” against U.S. military personnel in Iraq and Syria as a result of a gradual escalation of Iranian attacks in the region.

This situation didn’t start in 2020, but two years earlier. Brett McGurk, the former special presidential envoy for the global coalition to counter ISIL, declared on April 3, 2018, that the United States would remain in Syria to fight ISIL for the foreseeable future. But on December 19, 2018, Trump tweeted about the U.S. withdrawal from Syria after defeating ISIL. The decision was a surprise to both U.S. allies and adversaries, and Iran interpreted the decision as an American withdrawal from the Middle East. According to the State Department, Iran conducted around 40 attacks between May and September 2019 threatening the freedom of navigation and escalating terrorism in the region. Trump tried to keep his campaign promises by bringing home U.S. troops, but his move was neither strategic nor well-planned.

Trump put international security at risk on several occasions during his first term. These three examples reflected Trump’s lack of strategy, his distrust of foreign policy institutions, and his tendency to increase uncertainty. Trump will start his second term within a few weeks. He has stated certain preferences—ending the war in Ukraine, increasing oil and gas production, and imposing tariffs. Project 2025 has laid out a detailed foreign policy program. But in the end, expect the unexpected, and brace yourself for the possibility of war.