File
|
[Outlook on Global Affairs 2025-Special Issue-No.2] 2025 U.S. Political Outlook |
| December 19, 2024
|
-
Sang Hyun LeePrincipal Fellow | shlee@sejong.org
- The 2024 U.S. presidential election ended with a victory for candidate Donald Trump. Unlike the highly contested race, which was described as a 'nail-biter' during the campaign, Trump won decisively against Kamala Harris. The outcome was so clear that the vote counting finished more quickly and quietly than expected. In the congressional elections held alongside the presidential race, the Republican Party took control of both the House and the Senate. As a result, a 'unified government' emerged, with a Republican president and a Republican-controlled Congress. When Trump's second term begins on January 20, 2025, it is expected that he will have much stronger policy momentum compared to his first term. During his second presidency, Trump will be able to push forward his agenda to solidify his legacy, and there will be virtually no checks to restrain his dominance.
-
The 2024 election had several key issues, but according to exit polls, 58% of voters stated that the election was largely a "judgment on the administration" due to the incompetence of the Biden-Harris government. Key issues included democracy, the economy, abortion, immigration, and foreign policy, but the most significant factor seemed to be Americans' dissatisfaction with the economic situation. Supporters of Harris emphasized democracy, while Trump supporters identified the economy and immigration as the most important factors in their choice.
Trump's victory indicates a fundamental shift in the long-standing traditions and familiar power alliances of U.S. domestic politics. Not only did Trump win all seven battleground states, but he also outpaced the Democratic Party in total votes for the first time since the 2004 election. According to early post-election analysis by The New York Times, Trump's support significantly increased across various demographic divides, such as residential areas (urban vs. rural), education level, racial composition, and age, compared to the 2020 election. In particular, there was a nearly 7% rise in support in 290 counties where the white population is under 50%, and Trump also performed well in areas with large African American voter populations. The most significant change in support was seen in counties with over 25% Latino populations, where Trump's approval surged to more than 9% higher than in the 2020 election. This marked a painful turning point for the Democratic Party, which had relied heavily on identity-based voting strategies targeting minority groups, youth, and women. Even among high school graduates and above, a group previously thought to lean toward the Democratic Party, Trump found support. This revealed the formation of a broad 'Trump coalition' within American society, and it indicated that the Republican Party could transform from a party historically supported by business interests, white males, and the upper class into one that is more diverse and labor-oriented. The Democratic Party's loss was a result of failing to recognize these underlying societal changes while fixating on abstract values like DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) and political correctness (PC).
From an electoral engineering perspective, the Democratic Party strategically failed in this election. While Trump had spent almost the entire past eight years working solely for this election, Harris had to run a campaign under the burden of only having a little over four months after Biden's resignation to show her presence to the voters. This was essentially a misstep by Biden and the Democratic Party. After leaving the White House, Trump focused more on making the Republican Party his own, and in the end, his strategy proved to be successful.
The next four years will be the era of the Republican Party, or more precisely, the era of Trump. With a second term no longer possible, the next two years, before the midterm elections, will essentially be Trump's last opportunity to implement his agenda. During this period, Trump will push his agenda as forcefully as possible. Unlike his first term, the swift process of selecting his cabinet members reveals his intentions. The people appointed to key senior positions so far are overwhelmingly MAGA loyalists, Trump supporters, Washington outsiders, and hardline figures, rather than those who were frequently mentioned as potential candidates. This has significant implications for Trump's foreign and security policy, as well as his approach to the Korean Peninsula.
Mike Waltz, who has been nominated as National Security Advisor, is a former Army Special Forces Green Beret officer with experience serving in Afghanistan. Marco Rubio, the nominee for Secretary of State, is known within the Republican Party as a staunch opponent of Cuba, China, and Iran. He is also a co-sponsor of the North Korean Human Rights Act and a hardliner on North Korea. Pete Hegseth, nominated for Secretary of Defense, is a former U.S. Army National Guard member who served in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. After retiring as an Army captain, he worked as a Fox News host, and this constitutes the entirety of his defense-related experience. Tulsi Gabbard, nominated as Director of National Intelligence (DNI), has no experience in intelligence matters and is known for her hardline positions on Islamic terrorism and North Korea's nuclear issue. In addition, several other high-ranking appointments or nominations so far are surprising. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, nominated as co-head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DoGE), Matt Gaetz, nominated as Attorney General, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., nominated as Secretary of Health and Human Services, are expected to face controversies during the Senate confirmation process. The figures appointed to foreign and security positions are predominantly hardline on China and North Korea, and the appointments show more expertise in the Middle East than in the Korean Peninsula. Many of the balanced figures from Trump’s first term have left, and assuming that those Trump distrusts — career bureaucrats — are excluded in favor of individuals who share his views, Trump’s second term seems likely to be an expanded and reproduced version of his first. With the support of a Republican-controlled Congress, Trump's second term is expected to have even greater momentum. -
In 2025, when Trump's second-term administration is launched, significant agendas in both domestic and foreign policies are expected to be quickly implemented. Domestically, immigration policy, economic and trade policies will be key focuses, while in foreign policy, attention is likely to be drawn to the resolution of the Ukraine conflict and China policy.
First, regarding the issue of illegal immigration, Trump has repeatedly pledged that if he returns to the presidency, he will begin large-scale deportations from day one. However, the specifics of how this deportation operation will unfold remain uncertain. The newly appointed 'border czar,' Tom Homan, has stated that illegal immigrants who pose a national security or public safety threat will be prioritized. He also mentioned that workplace raids, which were terminated under the Biden administration, could be reinstated. Stephen Miller, the former senior advisor to the White House, who has been appointed as the policy director at the White House, is known as a hardliner on immigration policy and is credited with designing Trump's mass deportation pledge. He has also stated that the second-term Trump administration plans to increase deportation numbers tenfold, aiming for over one million deportations annually. As is well known, Trump’s immigration policy focuses on strict enforcement and reducing both illegal and legal immigration. To prevent illegal immigration, he will continue the construction and expansion of the U.S.-Mexico border wall and significantly enhance efforts to deport illegal immigrants by increasing ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents. Simultaneously, the administration will shift to a merit-based immigration system that prioritizes skilled workers, thereby reducing the total number of legal immigrants. The second term of Trump’s administration is also expected to impose strict conditions on refugees and asylum applicants and plans to terminate DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), the program that provides deportation relief for illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. as children.
It remains uncertain whether the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce illegal immigration will be effectively implemented. Trump claims that the Biden administration failed in border control, leading to a surge in illegal immigration, but in reality, the highest number of illegal entries occurred during the George W. Bush administration. The Obama administration, in fact, deported the most illegal entrants. Therefore, Trump's assertion that the Democratic Party's failure in border control led to the highest increase in illegal immigration is not accurate. Moreover, nearly half of the foreign workers registered in the U.S. agricultural industry are illegal entrants without proper documentation, and in California, that percentage reaches 56%. For this reason, in states where agriculture, livestock, and fisheries are significant, the actual lobbying effort is to keep the southern border open rather than closing it.
Secondly, with the launch of Trump's second-term administration, a major reform of the federal bureaucracy is expected to come to the forefront. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), co-led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, is reportedly planning to push for the complete abolition of remote work for federal employees as a way to reduce inefficiency in the federal government. Musk, who has long maintained that the public sector does not need the current number of employees, is known for his strong opposition to regulation, bureaucracy, and what he calls the ‘violence of the bureaucracy.’ CNN, citing sources, reported that ending remote work across the entire federal government is being considered as the first task for the Department of Government Efficiency. Musk and Ramaswamy have emphasized deregulation, administrative cuts, and cost reductions as the three main reform objectives of the department, arguing that the federal government’s power must be reduced. The dismantling of the federal government is part of what Donald Trump has long advocated as the elimination of the so-called ‘deep state.’ Even after the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, federal employees in Washington D.C. have continued to work remotely 2 to 3 days a week. CNN, citing the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), reported that 1.3 million federal employees approved for remote work are spending only 60% of their work hours in the office. Ramaswamy recently posted on social media that up to 25% of the current 3 million federal employees could be reduced. If the White House pushes for the abolition of remote work, a conflict with federal employee unions could not be ruled out
Thirdly, the adjustment of economic and trade policies. Both Trump and Harris’s economic policies share the commonality of prioritizing U.S. national interests through an America First approach. America First represents an irreversible change in U.S. society, and U.S. media refers to this as the 'Trumpification' of American policy. Since the pandemic, U.S. trade policy has been increasingly protective, regardless of the party in power. The main difference, however, lies in the tools they use: Trump relies on tariffs, while Biden uses subsidies as the primary means.
Trump is expected to adopt a much stronger protectionist stance compared to the Democrats. He is projected to revert U.S. trade policy, which has long championed global free trade, back to the mercantilism of the pre-Civil War era. Trump is a firm believer in the effectiveness of tariffs, viewing the U.S. trade deficit as proof that other countries are taking advantage of America. Therefore, in Trump's second term, there is a high likelihood of a new tariff war with strategic competitors like China, as well as punitive policies toward countries that run trade surpluses with the U.S.
The issue is whether Trump’s policies will actually benefit the working class in the U.S. For example, if Trump follows through on his pledge to impose a 10% universal tariff, all countries around the world will inevitably respond with retaliatory tariffs. The imposition of a universal tariff is essentially tantamount to declaring a tariff war against the entire world. Naturally, tariff increases will raise the prices of goods imported into the U.S., leading to inflation, which will intensify inflationary pressures. Inflation, according to mainstream economic theory, has the effect of reducing the real income of the working class.
Trump's promised repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is also expected to spark controversy. It is reported that President-elect Trump plans to eliminate the $7,500 (approximately 10.5 million KRW) tax credit given for purchasing electric vehicles under the IRA. If the repeal of the IRA is realized, it is likely to undermine the competitiveness of companies like Hyundai and battery manufacturers, which have increased their investments in the U.S. to align with the IRA’s tax incentives for U.S.-made cars and batteries. The IRA provides up to $7,500 in tax credits for electric vehicles made in the U.S. if they meet requirements for battery production and the sourcing of key minerals. However, many foreign companies that built factories to qualify for the IRA’s benefits are located in Rust Belt regions such as Michigan, Ohio, and Georgia, which are also strong Republican areas. As a result, there is considerable skepticism that the repeal will be easily achieved.
Fourthly, the issue of ending the war in Ukraine. Trump has stated that he will end the Ukraine war within 24 hours of taking office, but the specifics of his negotiation approach are unknown. Trump is likely to push for a quick settlement by abruptly halting U.S. support for Ukraine and pressuring Ukraine to cede the eastern regions occupied by Russia. According to President Zelensky, 27% of the territory currently recognized by the international community as Ukrainian has been occupied by Russia, including Crimea and the eastern areas that Russia seized in 2014. Vice President-elect J.D. Vance has proposed creating a demilitarized zone (DMZ) along the current frontlines and suggested that Ukraine could maintain its independence but not join NATO or any allied bloc in exchange for giving up part of its territory. If President-elect Trump halts military aid to Ukraine, it could force Ukraine into negotiating from a disadvantaged position, potentially creating disagreements between the U.S. and NATO. European nations are concerned that such a decision could send a dangerously wrong message to Russia, implying that all European borders are 'negotiable.‘
Fifthly, the approach and timing of the U.S.-China tariff war. Trump’s policy toward China is transactional, focusing on immediate benefits. For the Republican Party, China is an adversary that must be defeated in competition and represents a civilizational challenge to Western society as a whole. Trump has stated that, aside from universal tariffs, he would impose tariffs of 60-100% on China and strongly control China’s circumvention of exports via Mexico. His pledges regarding China include the withdrawal of China’s Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status, a phased halt to imports of essential goods from China (such as electronics, steel, and pharmaceuticals), a ban on Chinese purchases of U.S. real estate and businesses, and a ban on imports of Chinese vehicles. The worst-case scenario would be China responding to Trump’s tariffs with retaliatory tariffs, which would mark the beginning of a global tariff war and likely lead to a contraction of the international trade environment. Specifically, if China’s PNTR status is revoked, it would be removed from the 'Column 1' classification on the U.S. tariff schedule and subject to the tariffs applied to 'Column 2' countries, which currently include Cuba, North Korea, Russia, and Belarus. Revoking China’s PNTR status would negatively impact U.S. GDP, exports, and inflation, and China’s retaliation would further harm the U.S. economy, exacerbating domestic inflation.
Sixth, lastly, the Korean Peninsula will also be affected in various ways once Trump’s second-term administration is launched. First, Trump’s North Korea policy still prioritizes big deals through personal diplomacy. Trump has repeatedly boasted that he has maintained good relationships with leaders of authoritarian countries, and he has expressed the view that 'getting along with Kim Jong-un is a good thing.' It remains uncertain whether the position of non-acceptance of North Korea’s nuclear weapons will be maintained in Trump's second term. In the U.S., there has been growing recognition that North Korea’s denuclearization has become impossible, and it is now suggested that the U.S. should accept North Korea as a nuclear state and prepare for nuclear disarmament negotiations. The issue is that Trump’s big deal with Kim Jong-un could end as a showy summit without substantive progress on denuclearization. In a 'Korea passing' situation, it would be an unacceptable development for South Korea if North Korea is essentially recognized as a nuclear state.
South Korea is expected to face three main challenges. First, the issue of the U.S.-South Korea alliance and North Korea policy. It is highly likely that South Korea will be asked to increase its defense cost-sharing contributions, and there are concerns about the possibility of a hollow nuclear deal or negotiation through direct U.S.-North Korea talks. Second, the need to adjust U.S.-South Korea economic relations. There are concerns about the possibility of additional renegotiations of the free trade agreement (FTA) to reduce South Korea’s significant trade surplus with the U.S., as well as potential disruptions to economic security cooperation due to the repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Third, there will be increasing pressure for South Korea to join in the U.S.’s pressure on China. As South Korean companies become more involved in the U.S.’s pressure on China, collateral damage will be inevitable. -
South Korea is currently facing an unprecedented crisis. There are alarming signs in both domestic politics and the global situation. Recently, the global geopolitical situation has become extremely chaotic. Under a fragmented world order, new alliances are forming simultaneously, and various conflicts and confrontations are occurring all over the world, increasing uncertainty and risks. Against this backdrop of global uncertainty, Trump's second-term administration is set to launch.
The core of Trump’s 'America First' foreign policy begins with breaking away from the existing globalist approach. The Republican Party criticizes U.S. foreign policy before Trump as a global one, regardless of whether it was under the Democrats or Republicans, which involved endless interventions in international disputes that did not directly benefit the U.S. national interest and prioritizing global institutions over national sovereignty. Trump takes the position of not using American taxpayer money for foreign military activities that do not directly benefit U.S. national interests. As is well known, Trump views all issues from a transactional approach and instinctively rejects deals where the U.S. is at a disadvantage. He emphasizes correcting the imbalance in foreign relations where the U.S. suffers losses while other countries gain. The imbalance he speaks of includes the massive U.S. trade deficit in economic and trade sectors, and in military and security sectors, it refers to the insufficient contributions of U.S. allies—such as inadequate defense sharing and defense spending below 2% of GDP. This principle applies not only to adversaries like China but also to close allies such as South Korea and Japan. Regarding alliances, Trump views them not as security assets to leverage but as burdens on the U.S. This perspective is completely opposite to the view held by U.S. leaders from Harry Truman to Joe Biden, who saw alliances as force multipliers.
Once Trump's second-term administration begins, various changes are expected in foreign and security policy. Trump's return essentially marks the end of the rule-based international order established under U.S. leadership after World War II. In July this year, President Biden hosted the NATO 75th anniversary event in Washington. Over the past 75 years, NATO has functioned as a symbol of U.S. global leadership, maintaining peace and stability among great powers and defending democracy. President-elect Trump has made it clear that he will no longer use American taxpayers' money to maintain this order and has expressed his intention to replace the free trade system, which contributed to global economic prosperity, with tariff barriers. Some of America's democratic allies still rely on the U.S. nuclear umbrella, but this protection is now at the mercy of the new president's whims and can be withdrawn at any time. The spread of democracy, which President George W. Bush described as America's mission to 'promote and support the growth of democracy in all nations and civilizations,' can be seen as officially ending with the launch of Trump's second term. Once Trump is inaugurated, it is expected that the U.S. will drastically cut funding for UN programs and withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Migration Agreement.
Many of Trump's second-term pledges will be difficult to implement unilaterally and autocratically. They are not free from congressional and judicial oversight, and resistance from the federal bureaucracy and state governments will also be considerable. In reality, it is uncertain whether Trump's pledges will actually benefit the working class, lower-income, and middle-class supporters who voted for him in this election. While it is anticipated that Trump's second term will face more challenges than the first, there is no need to be shaken or discouraged. Trump knows that once he enters the White House, any overreach or excessive ambitions in the early years of the administration will backfire in the midterm elections. Now is the time to carefully assess which of the harsh rhetoric from the U.S. election process will translate into actual policies and prepare to respond accordingly. Only then can opportunities be found in the midst of the crisis.
| What We Didn’t Know about the U.S.: Shifts in the U.S. Domestic Political Landscape
| Policy Outlook for the Launch of Trump's Second Term Administration
| Preparing for the Upcoming Turmoil
※ The opinions expressed in 'Sejong Focus' are personal opinions of the author and do not represent the official views of the Sejong Institute
