History, as they say, does not repeat itself—but it often echoes. In recent years, global politics has begun to reflect patterns reminiscent of colonialism, albeit in a modernised and less overt form: less about territorial annexation, and more about control over resources, technology, and strategic geography.

Enter Donald Trump—a leader who did not revive classical colonialism, but whose policies and approach to international relations gave rise to a distinctly contemporary variant. This model relies not on formal empire-building, but on economic coercion, unilateral decision-making, and calibrated military interventions.

Classical colonialism was direct: territorial conquest, political subjugation, and economic extraction. In contrast, what may be termed “colonialism with Trump’s characteristics” operates through more sophisticated instruments. Tariffs, sanctions, financial restrictions, and targeted military actions have replaced the tools of earlier empires. Power is no longer exercised through occupation alone, but through influence over systems and outcomes.

Transactional Engagement

At the core of this approach was the “America First” doctrine. While prioritising national interest is not unusual, its application during this period marked a shift from cooperative multilateralism to transactional and often unilateral engagement. Alliances became conditional, and international norms increasingly subject to reinterpretation.

The conflict with Iran illustrates this shift. What began as limited, targeted strikes evolved into a broader confrontation involving military deployments, attacks on critical infrastructure, and sustained strategic signalling. Key energy sites emerged as instruments of leverage—not necessarily for destruction, but for control. Unlike traditional colonialism, which sought territorial dominance, this approach focuses on influencing critical nodes such as energy flows and maritime chokepoints.

A similar pattern is visible in developments in Venezuela. U.S. involvement in regime disruption and leadership change reflects an approach that avoids formal annexation while seeking to shape political and economic outcomes. Such interventions, often framed in terms of stabilisation or democratic transition, nonetheless carry echoes of earlier practices where external powers restructured governance in pursuit of strategic interests—particularly access to resources.

The proposal to acquire Greenland further underscored this mindset. While not realised, the very articulation of such an idea evoked earlier eras when territory could be treated as a transactional asset, reinforcing perceptions of a shifting normative framework in international relations.

Broader Strategic Orientation

This evolving pattern has not gone unnoticed. Vivek Katju, a former Indian diplomat, articulated a particularly stark interpretation while speaking on Kapil Sibal’s programme “Dil Se With Kapil Sibal.” He argued that what is unfolding is not merely assertive foreign policy, but “the American desire to bring about a return to colonialism.”

Katju’s assessment draws on remarks by Marco Rubio at the Munich Security Conference, which he interprets as a defence of Western expansion without “guilt or shame.” In this reading, the historical legacy of colonialism is not being repudiated, but rather reframed as a justified exercise of power. The implication is significant: a shift from a post-colonial order grounded in norms and restraint to one that is increasingly comfortable with overt dominance.

He connects this perspective to recent developments—the events in Venezuela, the escalation with Iran, the Greenland proposal, and even leadership-targeted strikes conducted without formal declarations of war. Taken together, these actions suggest not isolated decisions, but elements of a broader strategic orientation: one that seeks to reshape regions, influence political systems, and manage global outcomes in ways that bear resemblance to earlier colonial practices.

Challenges for International Community

For India, this raises complex challenges. Historically, India has positioned itself as a strong advocate of anti-colonialism and sovereignty. However, in the current context, its responses have often appeared measured and cautious, despite the direct implications for its interests—ranging from energy security and regional stability to strategic initiatives such as connectivity through Iran.

At the systemic level, these developments coincide with a weakening of multilateral institutions such as the World Trade Organization and the World Health Organization. These bodies, once central to the rules-based international order, are increasingly challenged by unilateral actions and great-power competition.

The emerging response from other actors reflects a growing recognition of this shift. 

At the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney invoked Václav Havel’s “greengrocer” analogy. The story describes a shopkeeper displaying a slogan not out of conviction, but to conform. Carney’s argument was that the international system has been similarly maintaining the appearance of a functioning rules-based order, even as its foundations erode. His call to “take the sign out of the window” was, in essence, an appeal to acknowledge the reality of systemic change.

In this context, Trump’s role appears less as an outlier and more as an accelerator. He did not create these structural shifts, but he articulated and amplified them with unusual clarity. The underlying transformation—towards a more competitive, transactional, and power-driven order—extends beyond any single administration.

In conclusion, “colonialism with Trump’s characteristics” does not entail formal empire-building. Rather, it represents a reconfiguration of power through economic leverage, strategic intervention, and narrative dominance. It reflects a world in which control is exercised not through direct rule, but through influence over systems, resources, and decision-making processes. The challenge for the international community lies in responding to this shift while preserving the principles of sovereignty, stability, and cooperative governance that underpin the modern global order.

(The author is a policy professional in international relations and trade policy, formerly associated with the Ministry of External Affairs (Policy Planning & Research Division) and the Ministry of Heavy Industries, Government of India. Views expressed are personal.He can be reached at @Nicholeballawar (https://x.com/Nicholeballawar)