On Nov. 5, Trump achieved a historic victory over his opponent Kamala Harris and the Democrats, securing the U.S. presidency for the next four years. This event is considered one of the significant milestones in the last 130 years of U.S. history, as he became one of the rare figures to assume the presidency again after a period away from office, demonstrating his fighting spirit. In this new term, it remains uncertain whether Trump will lead the U.S. through an unpredictable governance period, as he did during his 45th presidency. In this context, examining U.S.-Turkish relations since his last term is crucial. The forthcoming period raises questions about whether new collaborations or a unilateral trajectory will dominate the relationship. Within this unpredictability, it is important to emphasize the existing principles of realpolitik.

In comparison with Biden’s term, Trump’s approach during his previous presidency was less focused on multilateralism and more centered on "America First" or the "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) agenda. It was, fundamentally, a strategy driven by individual interests, as was evident throughout his previous presidency. While this approach has had its effects on the global system, creating an environment where Biden’s term emphasized conflict-oriented field realities, Trump's previous term suggests that, at the very least, a period free from global conflicts might emerge.

At this juncture, it is essential to address whether the U.S.-Turkish relationship will evolve into a more flexible but less trust-based structure or if it will adapt to a multi-centered international order that is conducive to partnerships. Two key issues should be examined here: first, the changing structure and realities of the international system; and second, Türkiye’s growing influence in the realm of foreign policy.

Reckoning Biden's term

After the 2020 election, Trump stepped down from the presidency amid a period where the global effects of the post-COVID era were becoming increasingly apparent. As the pandemic redefined international dynamics, it ushered in a new period of vulnerability in the relationship between individuals and the state, with economic challenges emerging as a major issue alongside health concerns. This period put immense pressure not only on individuals but also on entire economic systems. However, in the U.S., the Biden administration appeared to respond to these challenges not with solutions but through policies that increased costs.

During the COVID-19 recovery period, the Biden administration’s fiscal policies and high-spending initiatives had significant repercussions on the global economy. Domestically, rising costs and a contradictory foreign policy approach, rather than promoting stability, became sources of public discontent. This is especially evident in the U.S.’s financial support for Ukraine amid the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, which has resulted in substantial economic burdens ultimately borne by American taxpayers. NATO members also faced similar pressures.

Another critical issue is the U.S.'s stance in the Middle East, particularly its support for Israel’s aggressive and expansionist policies. Here, the U.S. has continued to back conflict through strategic moves that endorse military action. Financial and political support for Israel has, in the end, exacerbated violence against innocent civilians. This unwavering support has profound ethical and financial consequences, further complicating the Biden administration's foreign policy legacy. Rather, it brought in a new uncertainty and crisis environment within the global system, weakening the position of U.S. leadership in the world. This process, which the U.S. went through with the Biden administration, brought a period of more vulnerability and unpredictability both in international relations and the economy.

Multipolar world order

In response to these U.S. policies, the international system – especially the regions surrounding Türkiye – has essentially become a ring of fire. In this context, the international system left behind at the end of Trump’s 45th presidency has evolved significantly by the time of his 47th term, transforming into a multipolar world where conflicts have reached a level that challenges international law, particularly with respect to international peace and security.

Within this new conflict-driven system, Russia, facing isolation due to Western sanctions, has pursued the creation of a new center of influence within the global order. This center can be seen as a continuation of the multipolar rhetoric that emerged at the 2007 Munich Summit. One of the clearest indicators of this shift was the BRICS summit held in Russia in 2024.

On the other hand, the transformations in the global system indicate that the U.S. will need to chart a new course in foreign policy, one that addresses these emerging challenges. Within U.S.-Türkiye relations, it is crucial to recognize that Türkiye, in this evolving global order, will no longer operate under the same dependencies as in the past.

One of the most notable aspects here is Türkiye's decreasing dependency on the defense sector, primarily due to its strengthening defense industry. From a realist perspective, this shift reflects Türkiye’s increasing power in asserting its interests and autonomy. Consequently, it is essential to understand that the sanctions process triggered by the S-400 issue during Trump’s previous presidency may not recur in the same form this time. From this perspective, certain key points need to be focused on by the Trump administration in its future relations with Türkiye.

Renewed Türkiye

The first and foremost is multipolarity in international relations that took place during the Biden era. Türkiye is increasingly engaging with non-Western blocs, such as BRICS and the Organization of Turkic States, signaling its intent to diversify its alliances beyond traditional Western ties. This strategic shift demonstrates Türkiye's pursuit of a more balanced, multipolar foreign policy, positioning itself as a pivotal player across multiple spheres of influence.

Another point that needs to be taken into consideration is Türkiye's regional power. Throughout the chaos and turbulence of the Biden administration's tenure, Türkiye has focused on creating a zone of stability within the region. In doing so, it has successfully positioned itself as a problem-solving actor committed to conflict resolution. Türkiye has demonstrated this through its neutral role and mediation efforts in the Russian-Ukrainian war, as well as its diplomatic initiatives during Israel's attacks on Gaza. In this context, Türkiye stands as a strong regional power with significant global influence.

Lastly, Türkiye's growing defense autonomy has become a significant reality. Türkiye has effectively turned the defense-related challenges it faced during Trump’s term into an opportunity, approaching these issues with a solution-oriented mindset. As a result, Türkiye’s defense industry has demonstrated significant progress across multiple sectors in recent years. This advancement has shown that using sanctions between NATO allies as a tool for punishment or reprimand is no longer effective in Türkiye’s case. While sanctions have indeed strained U.S.-Turkish relations, Türkiye has managed to strengthen its own defense capabilities and, in the process, gained valuable insights. Notably, Türkiye has expanded its production of drones (UAVs) and armed drones (UCAVs), establishing a robust presence in the international defense market.

The role of Türkiye, in this reconstituted relationship, is vast in power projection to act as a regional influencer. This puts Türkiye as a good partner for the U.S. in the attainment of shared security goals and regional stability; at the same time, it would enable him to resist external pressure and policy independence. In this way, it may be said that the U.S.-Türkiye relationship would evolve into a more balanced type of strategic partnership in which the clout factor of Türkiye shapes the U.S.'s regional policies in a manifestation of mutual respect of sovereignty and mainly aligned but at times diverging interests.