top of page
Search

The World Trump Refuses to Hear

During his joint address to Congress in March, President Trump derogatorily dismissed the existence of the state of Lesotho, which, according to him, “nobody has ever heard of.” The disparaging joke was received by viewers with outright indignation and critique. 


Trump in a blue suit shines a flashlight on a giant statue of himself in a desert landscape with palm trees and bomb craters. Mood is surreal.
Illustration by Yashashree A

BBC News Africa (2025) took care to ascertain with Lesotho inhabitants about their replies to Mr. Trump, because Lesothians are “here, and living”. As is evident, in the eyes of the US President, many things are not deserving of his attention. 


Undeserving and ungrateful was the Ukrainian President Zelensky during the press conference in the Oval Office. Gazan suffering does not warrant US attention or intervention, but its beaches do—at least according to his AI-generated video, where he proudly unveiled his proposal for the Strip’s post-conflict reconstruction. 


Similarly, President Trump refuses to listen to his counterparts on either side of the US border, dismissing voices from both the north and south. Unsurprisingly, according to the President, border control at the Mexico border is due to become impenetrable and Canada should become the 51st state of the US. 


Chances are, Trump will fall short of delivering on his promise to prioritize American citizens under the banner of 'America First.' And yet, the thought of his ravenous isolationism is frightening. The US President’s statement on Lesotho cannot be dismissed as simply an ill-intentioned joke. Instead, it is emblematic of Trump’s isolationist narrative. Apparently, he seems not to have heard about many things.


The question, therefore, is: What does Trump want to hear about?


Isolationism in the United States


Before answering this question, I deem it of extreme importance to clarify some concepts regarding Trump’s narrative. When talking about isolationism, people immediately think of economic policies of enclosure, tariffs on imports, and the promotion of domestic industry. To make the concept more tangible: isolationist behaviour can be found in Bhutan’s hermitage or Swiss neutrality. 


Isolationism recounts several comebacks in American history, alternating with waves of internationalist (and imperialist) thought. The two streams have battled and collaborated in different instances of American foreign policy history, but significantly, as studied by Raymond Esthus (1978), American isolationism stems from the ideal of American moral superiority to the other nations. 


If this is the backbone belief of American isolationism, one can imagine how the thought can bind extremely well to both conservative economic and foreign policy, and the American policing tendency in favour of exporting liberal ideals. 


Yet, according to McKnight (2013), Professor of History at Oregon State University, most scholarly debates fail to grasp a full understanding of isolationism as both an economic doctrine and a political narrative and ideology. 


In his book the Promise and Peril: America at the Dawn of a Global Age, McKnight describes isolationism as a rhizome, or a capillary, interconnected structure of thought that allows for multiple, non-linear connections. Isolationism is presented, thus, as a highly hybrid thought or phenomenon, adaptable to differing ideologies, as reviewed by Margolies (2012). 


Isolationism, indeed, follows an intricate, and at times contradictory, trajectory of political association. Contrary to what one could imagine, isolationism has more often been played hand-in-hand with interventionist and expansionist American aims than the truer disengagement policies one would expect. 


McNight (2013) finds the origins of modern isolationism in the 1880s and 1890s, when the concept began to be associated with debates regarding the role of the United States in the world. The main exponents, namely philosophers William James and Henry Cabot Lodge, sided with anti-interventionist isolation ideology, prioritising national interest to foreign policy.


Tables turned during the Great War, when Woodrow Wilson’s desire for peace and internationalism convened into the League of Nations covenant, the precedent of today’s United Nations. The two World Wars contributed to shaping a new political isolationism with “largely open engagement in commercial and cultural activities”. 


The only intervals for the same were the Great Depression, during which time the American economy retreated into austerity and withdrew from the international markets, and the America First Committee’s political activities, a congregation of politicians who opposed the American entry in World War II in the name of a pure isolationism. 


With the surge of the Cold War, isolationism was revisited in favour of internationalism, to best suit the anti-Communist fervor and liberal capitalist economics to counterweight the Soviet Union. 


It is during this era that the US escalated its ties to Africa. Beginning from President Eisenhower’s involvement in the Congo crisis in 1960, and leading to the creation of the Peace Corps to serve the US in Ghana, American engagement in the continent follows the greater patterns of the ideological war against the Soviet Union. 


Yet, US policy remained silent in front of the abuses and violences of the Apartheid in South Africa, which was deemed by Henry Kissinger, the former US Secretary of State, to be dealt with “adventurism,” according to the final report written for the Institute of Democratic Governance (2014). 


With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, the 1990s prospected the golden age of renewed internationalism and American cultural, ideological victory—committing to “broader diplomatic engagement and leadership [...] as necessary components of national security and global security” (McKnight 2013). 


However enlightening, McKnight Nichols fails to highlight the imperialist structures of American policies. No matter the political feeling, Margolies (2012) argues for the existence of deeper imperial ambitions common to all American administrations. 


In fact, at the dawn of 9/11 that the US will bluntly strengthen the unilateral rhetoric, proving right the colonial allegations made, and enterprising the bloody and costly War on Terror, first invading Afghanistan and then Iraq. Former President Bush’s neoconservatism mounted a unilateral and military offensive foreign policy, according to Janowski (2004). 


Overall, isolationism can be compared to a tennis table ball, bouncing from one extreme to the other of the American political spectrum without ever losing momentum. Coming to Trump’s politics, both his first and his second mandates have referred to the isolationist rhetoric of “America First.” However, how is the President planning to achieve this promised American grandiosity? 


Or better, is it really in the interest of the Americans to disregard the richness of the African continent? Since President Trump aims at making America great again, do Americans not want to be represented by a President capable of sustaining dialogues with the entire world? Why is Africa not part of the President’s chessboard?


Here is why President Trump is wrong:


America's stakes in the African continent are far more strategic than President Trump would want to believe.


In the last ten years, China, seemingly the United States' worst enemy right now, has been investing and funding infrastructure and technological advancements on the African coasts and territory, furthering ‘The Belt and Road Initiative.’ 


The latter is the largest and most comprehensive economic and financial policy of 21st century China, aiming at increasing China’s trade and connectivity with the globe (Delapalme et al., 2023). It would be, therefore, very inconvenient for President Trump to beat the African nations with the tariffs’ hard stick, which could place China in a favourable position. 


Indeed, on April 2, 2025, President Trump has announced the Liberation Day, during which he inaugurated his now-paused sweeping reciprocal tariffs, extending a worldwide tariff of 10% and country-specific ones. Considerable are the tariff adjustments for Lesotho (50%), Cambodia (49%), Laos (48%), Madagascar (47%) and Vietnam (46%), collected by Hunton (2025). Yet, while the tariffs have been frozen for 90-days, the exception of China remains, as reported by Buchwald and Liptak for CNN (Buchwald and Liptak, 2025)


One might wonder why, if Lesotho has never been heard of by anyone, and every global leader is calling the US President to “kiss his (my) ass,” is Trump so determined to isolate from the African and Indo-Pacific economies? (Lewis 2025) 


The Indo-Pacific and Africa are clear targets of President Trump’s administration. Yet, one would wonder, if President Trump has never heard of Lesotho, why tax the African nation so highly? The reciprocal tariffs system not only re-affirms the American President’s disparaging attitude towards African and Asian nations but also the will to kneel their economies, in an obsolete colonialist fashion and childish tantrum.


According to Cheref for the New Arab, the engagement made by the Biden-Harris administration to cover and re-establishing the US-African relationships after President Trump’s first term in 2016. Former president, Joe Biden, had promised to invest 55 Billion USD in the African continent by 2025, as reported by Reuters (2022), certainly motivated by its rivalry with China (Cheref, 2023).   


Trump and Africa


In the past, US involvement in the African continent has evolved along a multifaceted approach, from trade to security and humanitarian relief. The first formal partnerships between the African Union and the US government were released in the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) in 2000 and the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD) in 2001. Both contained the American vision and policy framework for trade and socioeconomic development of the African continent. Mostly they were thought of as the means to tackle African isolation from the international sphere (Institute of Democratic Governance, 2014). 


AGOA, in particular, established duty-free access to 1,800 US market products, functioning as a preferential agreement between African market-based economies and the US market (United States Trade Representative, 2025). 


Yet, the sustainability of the Act is largely criticized as it only favours a few countries in the continent (Nigeria, South Africa, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Chad and Angola), and only seems to implement rentier-type of exports, such as oil, gas and natural resources, failing to promote the diversification of the African nations’ economy (Institute of Democratic Governance, 2014). 


In respect of security and defense collaboration, the relations evolved after 2007 with the establishment of the AFRICOM, or the United States Africa Command. The agency is in charge of fostering defense mechanisms against transnational threats, exchanging tactical information and furthering security. 


Finally, the engagement of the US in Africa extends to humanitarian and peacekeeping action. Numerous are the campaigns that the US initiated to combat HIV/AIDS in the 1990s. According to the statistics of the Global Fund, to which the US is the major contributor, 1.9 million people in Africa receive treatment from the Fund to combat AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Institute of Medicine, 2011).


Under Trump’s administration, the ties that have been established with the continent are in extreme danger, and the effects could be catastrophic, other than evitable. Think of the deal that provides the US-based Apple Inc. with the minerals necessary to build iPhones. 


Shankar (2025) informed Al Jazeera that the company is now under legal investigation for its neglect of supply chain labour and safety standards. Furthermore, lithium, another mineral of which the DRC is rich, has been seized and illegally smuggled by the M23 Rwandan rebel group. 


The White House is currently working on a deal to implement American extraction support of these minerals, in order to “help secure the area and end conflict,” as transcribed by Enendu (2025) for the BBC. Can anybody believe that these trade deals, the ones that stain American hands with 2,000 mine deaths per year, are truthfully going to be resolutive? 


Furthermore, the President’s abolition of USAID, aimed at sweeping reductions within the federal workforce, as discussed by The Guardian (2025), are a considerable attack to the African continent, which is heavily dependent on aid and contracts from the myriads of NGOs and projects that provide humanitarian relief, schooling and prevent disease outbreaks. 


In 2024, USAID invested $6.5 billion in assistance to the Sub-Saharan region alone (Think Global Health). Other than the internal consequences to the impact on the families of the 10,000 employees USAID contracted around the world, the President’s decision to cut reveals his extreme cynicism towards the African continent. 


American Decadence and a New Momentum


Once again, President Trump skillfully intertwines his isolationist 'America First' rhetoric with expansionist economic ambitions, all under the star-spangled banner—and he’s unwilling to take 'no' for an answer. A clear pattern emerges across both of his presidential terms: the deliberate and often indiscriminate designation of enemies.


President Trump’s list of adversaries spans both the global and domestic arenas—ranging from China, Iran, Lesotho, and Madagascar to internal foes like the Democrats, whom he has even referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution. More troubling, however, is that his political pursuits reveal a profound disregard for the fundamental needs of American society, coupled with a disturbing tendency to ridicule, intimidate, and threaten anyone who dares to stand between his imperial ambitions and the rest of the world.


If anyone poses a threat to Americans and the wider world, it’s President Trump himself. 


What I find most disturbing about Trump’s narrative is the fervent encroachment onto ideologies and tactics, which he switches, unbothered, on a case-to-case basis. This dynamic not only fails to conceal his imperialist intentions, but diverts the attention from the very issue at stake under his America First narrative: the onset of tragic decadence of politics. 


Never would I have imagined that a president—occupying the highest political office of a nation—could so brazenly demean other countries, disregarding their cultures, economies, and their very humanity.  


Trump's re-election has intensified global concerns, reinforcing fears that American geopolitical influence is steadily unraveling, as Fischer explains (2024). The newer stage we are entering may source values that many intellectuals and civil society around the world have longed for decades: demilitarization, the promotion of welfare, increased access to justice and equality, respect for the environment. We need to imagine an alternative to the world order we have lived in until now, in which a country’s worth will not have to confront structural inequalities and racism. 


Yet this new phase will bear little of Trump’s signature, for his ignorance and incompetence are not anomalies but symptoms of a world consumed by hyper-customized economies and fragmented thought. The American President’s political deafness is both his most troubling quality—and, paradoxically, the most hopeful one.


Trump refuses to acknowledge a world that does not conform to his vision of ‘great American leadership’—if his presidency can still be regarded as a legitimate political office. Yet in an age where every aspect of our identity—be it skin color or birthplace—becomes a marker of difference, we cannot afford for the presidency to function as a fragment of society rather than its representative whole. 


It is time to take a step back and act upon the common threads of our shared humanity. If democracy is to be the answer, it must listen to the Human—not merely to nations.




Edited by the Pandora Editorial Team


Arianna Feola (she/her) is a student of International Relations based in the Netherlands and a writer at Political Pandora. Born and raised in Italy, she has a deep curiosity for cultural diversity, languages, and migratory movements. Her academic focus lies in the Middle East and North Africa region, where she explores the intersections of politics, economics, culture, religion, and identity.



Disclaimer


Any facts, views or opinions are not intended to malign and/or disrespect any religion, group, club, organisation, company, or individual.

This article published on this website is solely representative of the author. Neither the editorial staff nor the organisation (Political Pandora) are responsible for the content.


All illustrations in this piece are original works created exclusively by the Design Department of Political Pandora.


These illustrations are protected and are not available for replication, reproduction, or redistribution in any form without explicit written consent from Political Pandora. Unauthorized use, including but not limited to copying, modifying, or redistributing, is strictly prohibited.


Photographs in this particular article are taken from external sources and are not a property of Political Pandora. The use of these images are not meant for commercial purposes.


While we strive to present only reliable and accurate information, should you believe that any information present is incorrect or needs to be edited, please feel free to contact us.



References:



Keywords: Trump Isolationism, America First Policy, US Africa Relations 2025, Trump Lesotho Comment, Trump Foreign Policy Africa, US-China Africa Competition, Belt And Road Africa, Trump Global Tariffs, US Aid Cuts Africa, Trump And AGOA, AFRICOM And US Security, Trump International Relations, US Geopolitical Influence Decline, Trump Trade War Africa, Humanitarian Aid Under Trump

Comments

Join the 
Pandora Community

Join Political Pandora! We offer exciting opportunities for passionate youth.

 

Publish your work on a global platform with an engaged audience, often cited in academic research. Your voice matters—be part of the conversation!

bottom of page