Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy has been widely characterised by arrogance, aggressive unilateralism, and a transactional, coercive style that frequently disregards diplomatic norms and the sovereignty sensitivities of other states. While his presidency did witness moments of intensified strategic cooperation with select partners—most notably India—these developments often coexisted with rhetoric and policies that generated resentment, uncertainty, and distrust. Nowhere is this paradox more evident than in Trump’s dealings with Venezuela and India, which together illuminate a broader pattern in his worldview: selective partnership combined with hierarchical power projection.

Understanding “Arrogance” in Trump’s Foreign Policy

In foreign policy scholarship, Trump’s style is commonly framed as “aggressive unilateralism” or a “doctrine of uncertainty.” This approach rests on the blunt assertion of U.S. power, the instrumentalisation of alliances, and a marked scepticism toward multilateral institutions, which are treated less as stabilising frameworks and more as constraints on American freedom of action. Trump’s rhetoric frequently departed from established diplomatic norms, employing contemptuous, bullying, and often personalised language toward both allies and adversaries.

Many analysts interpret this rhetorical style as a manifestation of arrogance grounded in two beliefs: American exceptionalism and Trump’s own confidence in personal deal-making prowess. Rather than prioritising predictability, trust, and rules-based engagement, Trump’s foreign policy emphasised short-term leverage, public spectacle, and media impact. Scholars argue that this emphasis often destabilised relationships painstakingly constructed over decades, replacing institutional continuity with personal whim and uncertainty.

Venezuela: Regime Change, Sanctions, and Oil

Trump’s policy toward Venezuela represents one of the most striking expressions of this posture. Building on earlier U.S. sanctions, his administration dramatically escalated economic pressure, transforming targeted measures into what critics described as a near-total financial blockade. Beginning in August 2017, sanctions restricted trading in Venezuelan sovereign debt and bonds issued by the state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), aiming to starve President Nicolás Maduro’s government of financing while formally exempting humanitarian transactions.

Over time, these measures expanded to include shipping firms and intermediaries involved in transporting Venezuelan crude. While framed as tools to promote democracy, critics argue that the sanctions deepened economic collapse and civilian suffering without producing meaningful political change. Instead, they accelerated state failure while entrenching authoritarian control.

By 2026, Trump’s posture shifted from economic coercion to overt military intervention. U.S. strikes, the capture of Maduro, and a declaration that Washington would “administer” Venezuela until a “proper transition” could be arranged marked an unprecedented escalation. Trump publicly announced that U.S. oil companies would enter Venezuela, repair “damaged” infrastructure, and begin generating revenue—effectively signalling American oversight of the country’s most strategic sector.

Analysts note that Trump explicitly linked the intervention to oil and counternarcotics narratives, portraying Maduro as a cartel-connected leader whose removal was necessary both to combat drug trafficking and to unlock Venezuela’s vast petroleum reserves, estimated at nearly 20 per cent of global crude. Policy commentators widely described this combination of regime change, resource control, and open talk of “running” another state as a textbook case of imperial arrogance—a twenty-first-century replay of earlier U.S. interventions in Latin America justified by security and economic interests.

The absence of a clear legal basis or international mandate, coupled with the sidelining of institutions such as the United Nations, reinforced perceptions that Trump’s foreign policy was dismissive of international law and indifferent to Venezuelan sovereignty.

India: Strategic Partnership Amid Pressure and Public Taunts

Trump’s relationship with India was far more complex, marked by both strategic convergence and sharp friction. On the positive side, his presidency coincided with deepened defence cooperation, enhanced counter-terrorism coordination, and expanding energy ties, including increased U.S. oil and gas exports to India. High-profile summits and public rallies—most notably Trump’s 2020 visit—projected a narrative of personal chemistry with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and shared concerns over China’s rise in the Indo-Pacific.

Yet this strategic engagement was repeatedly undercut by coercive trade policies and public rhetoric that many Indian analysts viewed as condescending and humiliating. In 2019, the Trump administration revoked India’s preferential trade status under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), claiming that New Delhi failed to provide “equitable and reasonable access” to its markets. India responded with retaliatory tariffs, and bilateral trade relations entered a period of strain.

Trump’s repeated characterisation of India as a “tariff king,” coupled with demonstrably inaccurate claims—such as asserting that the United States was not even among India’s top thirty exporters, despite being its fourth-largest source of imports—was widely seen as both uninformed and patronising. Indian commentators interpreted such remarks as evidence of a superficial understanding of the relationship and a willingness to publicly belittle a partner for domestic political effect.

Strategic thinkers in India argue that Trump’s threats—such as warning that trade would cease unless India complied with U.S. demands on Iranian oil imports or relations with Russia—resembled strategic bullying rather than partnership. While some suggest this pressure served as a “wake-up call” encouraging strategic autonomy, they also contend that the tone reflected a deeper American arrogance: India was treated not as a sovereign equal but as a subordinate expected to fall in line.

Toward Other Nations: Unilateralism and Contempt

Trump’s conduct toward other allies and adversaries reinforces the perception of a foreign policy infused with arrogance. His withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), the Paris climate agreement, and his persistent denigration of NATO allies for insufficient defence spending were interpreted in Europe as a challenge to the very foundations of the transatlantic partnership.

EU–U.S. relations scholars describe how Trump’s emotionally charged, contempt-laden rhetoric produced an “ontological security crisis” for Europe, undermining shared assumptions about cooperation, predictability, and a rules-based international order. His broader doctrine displayed three interrelated features frequently associated with arrogance:

• Rejection of multilateral institutions, from the World Health Organisation to arms-control regimes, is framed as entities that “cheat” or exploit the United States.
• Transactional alliances, where security commitments were conditioned on financial contributions or personal loyalty, evident in dealings with NATO, South Korea, and Japan.
• Personalised and erratic decision-making, often announced via social media without consultation, projecting unpredictability rather than stability.

In the Global South, harsh immigration policies, travel bans targeting Muslim-majority countries, and disparaging remarks about poorer nations further reinforced perceptions of condescension toward non-Western societies. The frequent use of sanctions and secondary sanctions to compel alignment with Iran, China, or Russia placed many states in untenable positions, signalling disregard for their domestic political realities.

India and Venezuela Together: A Pattern of Imperial Posture

When Trump’s public taunts toward India are viewed alongside the military intervention and proposed “administration” of Venezuela, many observers in the Global South perceive a coherent pattern rather than isolated incidents. In Venezuela, sanctions escalated into regime change accompanied by explicit plans for U.S. control of strategic resources—an act widely described as a brazen display of imperial arrogance. In India’s case, public threats and dismissive rhetoric illustrated a belief that even large democracies could be pressured and humiliated without serious diplomatic consequences.

Indian commentators note that being simultaneously courted as a strategic counterweight to China and castigated as a trade offender exposes the asymmetries embedded in Trump’s vision of partnership. Latin American analysts similarly view the Venezuelan episode as part of a longer tradition of treating the region as a geopolitical backyard, updated with contemporary language of drugs and democracy but still driven by oil and strategic dominance.

Conclusion

Across regions and issues, Donald Trump’s foreign policy projected an image of selective cooperation fused with hierarchical domination. Whether threatening India with trade punishment, promising to “run” Venezuela’s oil sector, or deriding long-standing allies, his approach combined unilateral power projection with public coercion and contemptuous rhetoric. For many scholars and commentators, this fusion of unpredictability, transnationalism, and disregard for sovereignty encapsulates the arrogance that defined Trump’s engagement with Venezuela, India, and the wider international community.

.    .    .

References:

• The Wire, “Trump’s Narcissism in His Art of the Deal Collides with Modi’s Hubris,” 5 September 2025.
• Chatham House. The U.S. Capture of President Nicolás Maduro and Attacks on Venezuela Have No Justification in International Law. London: Chatham House, January 4, 2026.
• Gul, Saima, and Nasreen Akhtar.
• “US–India Bilateral Relations during the Trump and Biden Administrations: The China Factor.” Journal of Political Studies and Analysis (2025)
• “How Hegemony Ends: The Unravelling of American Power.” Foreign Affairs (2023)