By Magnus Onyibe

This piece was inspired by a remark from the U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent- America First Does Not Mean America Alone – during his address to corporate America, where he sought to explain President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff policies—what many now call “Trump’s tariff war.”

In many ways, Bessent has become the “good cop” of the Trump administration. While critics often cast Trump as the “bad cop,” Bessent plays the role of a diplomatic interpreter, presenting the president’s tough and disruptive trade measures in a friendlier, more accessible way. His approach helps soften the impact of policies that have shaken the old world trade order and are now shaping a new one—an order President Trump is crafting through aggressive tariff strategies that have placed nearly every nation on alert.

Despite the controversy, Trump is increasingly proving himself one of America’s most effective dealmakers—perhaps even the most consequential statesman. This shouldn’t come as a surprise. After all, he co-authored The Art of the Deal in 1987, a book still regarded as a classic in salesmanship and negotiation.

In his second term, beginning January 20, Trump has elevated his approach by wielding tariffs not only as an economic tool but also as a lever of global security. Declaring his intention to end wars rather than start them, he has helped broker ceasefires in conflicts such as the India–Pakistan dispute and the Democratic Republic of Congo–Rwanda standoff involving the M23 militia.

Such efforts have earned him international recognition. Last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—during a visit to Washington—personally recommended Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, citing his role in seeking to end the Israel–Gaza war. Netanyahu even submitted a formal letter to the Nobel Committee.

Israel is not alone. Cambodia’s Prime Minister Hun Manet has echoed the nomination, praising Trump for mediating a ceasefire between Cambodia and Thailand after a territorial dispute displaced over 300,000 people. According to both sides, Trump’s phone call on July 26 broke the stalemate, leading to a Malaysia-brokered ceasefire two days later. Cambodia’s letter to the Nobel Committee lauded Trump’s “extraordinary statesmanship” and “visionary diplomacy.”

Azerbaijan and Armenia—longtime adversaries locked in intermittent conflict since the early 20th century—have also jointly nominated Trump. Their feud, rooted in territorial disputes and the tragic Armenian genocide of 1915, has persisted for over a century. In a historic development, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan signed a peace agreement at the White House, crediting Trump’s mediation for the breakthrough. Aliyev asked pointedly, “Who, if not President Trump, deserves a Nobel Peace Prize?”

Even Pakistan has joined the chorus. In April, tensions with India flared once again in Kashmir after militants killed 25 Indian tourists. The four-day conflict threatened to spiral out of control between two nuclear-armed states. Trump stepped in, warning both nations of increased trade tariffs if they failed to de-escalate. His intervention helped bring about a ceasefire, averting a potentially devastating escalation.

Through these actions, Trump is redefining “America First.” Far from signaling isolationism, his strategy uses economic leverage to influence global security—demonstrating that the pursuit of national interest can foster peace beyond America’s borders.

Azerbaijan–Armenia Joint Nomination Strengthens Global Push for Trump’s Nobel Peace Prize

The joint nomination of President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize by Azerbaijan and Armenia marks a pivotal moment in the growing wave of international endorsements for his recognition as a global peacemaker. This development underscores Trump’s active role in mediating conflicts and promoting stability across multiple regions.

As it stands, at least half a dozen nations are formally backing Trump’s candidacy for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize. While his campaign mantra remains “America First,” Trump has demonstrated that his foreign policy is not synonymous with isolationism. Beyond advancing U.S. interests—such as halting foreign aid under USAID to reduce what critics called America’s “Santa Claus” role—he has consistently engaged in conflict mediation worldwide.

His involvement spans attempts to end the ongoing Russia–Ukraine war, now in its third year, and the Israel–Gaza conflict, approaching its second. In an unprecedented move, Trump sanctioned India with a 50% trade tariff for violating global sanctions against Russia by purchasing Russian oil. Although China also imports oil from Russia, it has avoided similar punitive measures by entering negotiations after facing a steep 145% tariff during trade tensions earlier this year.

This tariff policy reflects Trump’s “reciprocal trade” approach—matching other nations’ barriers with equivalent U.S. measures. In April, he extended a 90-day grace period for friendly nations adjusting their tariffs on American goods, later pushing the deadline twice more to allow broader compliance. The willingness to extend deadlines, even for rivals like China, signals a pragmatic flexibility. However, critics have mockingly labeled this TACO—“Trump Always Chickens Out”—a play on the popular Mexican dish. However, from a negotiation standpoint, this flexibility is strategic: it enables partners to consult, adapt, and reach mutually beneficial agreements rather than forcing compliance through rigidity.

This philosophy aligns with established negotiation principles, such as those outlined in Roger Fisher and William Ury’s landmark book “Getting to Yes,” which emphasizes win–win outcomes where no party feels exploited. Trump appears to be applying such principles to global trade and diplomacy alike.

Beyond economic tools, Trump has issued direct ultimatums on security matters. When Iran refused to halt its suspected nuclear enrichment program, the U.S. conducted targeted strikes on known nuclear sites using B-22 bombers equipped with bunker-busting munitions. Last week, he also gave Russia a fresh deadline to end its war against Ukraine, following renewed and intense bombardment. Despite criticism for not being “tough enough” on Moscow, Trump has continued to pair sanctions with opportunities for negotiation, such as arranging talks in Turkey—though these have yet to yield lasting results.

Trump’s persistence in seeking to end these wars is not driven solely by humanitarian concerns. The regions affected by war—the Black Sea grain corridor and Middle Eastern energy hubs—are vital to the global supply of food and fossil fuels. Stability in these areas is therefore essential not only for regional peace but also for the functioning of the global economy.

In essence, while “America First” remains his guiding slogan, Trump’s willingness to adjust deadlines, broker ceasefires, and engage in sustained diplomacy illustrates that his vision is not America Alone. Instead, it reflects a calculated balance between protecting the U.S. interests and safeguarding the interconnected stability of the world economy.

Global Trade, Conflict Resolution, and Trump’s ‘America First, Not America Alone’ Doctrine

Russia and Ukraine remain two of the world’s most critical suppliers of wheat and other staple grains, just as the Middle East remains the heart of global fossil fuel production. Economists widely agree that disruptions in the free flow of both resources have contributed significantly to the global economic slowdown and the resulting hardships facing humanity today.

Over the past three years, prolonged wars in these strategic regions have severely undermined global economic stability—an urgency that underpins President Donald Trump’s drive to end them. His strategy blends military support—arming allies such as Israel and Ukraine—with economic measures, including sanctions against Russia and its allies like India.

This approach exemplifies Trump’s America First, not America Alone policy. He has consistently sought to mediate both the Israel–Hamas and Russia–Ukraine conflicts, aiming for global peace as a foundation for shared prosperity. Recently, his administration set a new deadline for Russia, prompting former president and current war chief Dmitry Medvedev to issue a veiled threat of nuclear confrontation. But he has since backed down as Russia has agreed to negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine with the US.

In the Middle East, a similar ultimatum to Hamas to release hostages taken in 2023 went unheeded, further escalating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza as Israel has increased its tempo of trying to recover Israelis still being held hostage by Hamas. Against the backdrop of famine caused by Israel’s blockade, France, the UK, and—most recently—Canada and Australia have broken with longstanding Western policy by recognizing Palestine. This divergence risks leaving the U.S. isolated if it continues to back a two-state solution. Whether such recognition of Palestine or a much more pragmatic approach will meaningfully halt Israeli bombardments or ease the food blockade remains an open question.

In response to the earlier identified geopolitical shifts, Trump has paired diplomacy with economic leverage. India, accused of breaching sanctions by purchasing Russian oil, has faced steep tariffs. Canada has been penalized for its recognition of Palestine, while the UK—helped by King Charles’s outreach during Trump’s visit—secured a relatively low 10% rate. France’s tariffs are significantly higher, reflecting strained relations.

More broadly, tariffs have been raised to 40% for about 30 countries deemed unwilling to renegotiate trade terms. Yet Trump’s repeated extensions of the 90-day pause on these increases— shifted from July 9 to August 1—and later to August 12th demonstrate a willingness to give partners space to adjust. Even China has just been granted another 90-day pause for her to work out acceptable tariff arrangements in a manner that would not trigger calamitous trade disruptions.
As U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent explained that America First means the U.S. will trade with the world, but on reciprocal terms that replace decades of self-imposed disadvantage under “big brother” diplomacy.

Unfair trade, however, is not unique to the U.S. Africa, too, has endured centuries of economic exploitation—from the Berlin Conference of 1884–85 to modern debt traps—locked into a role as supplier of raw materials and consumer of finished goods. Trump’s overhaul of the 80-year-old trade order offers Africa an opportunity to negotiate fairer terms. By joining his push for reciprocal tariffs, African leaders could break the cycle of dependency and address structural poverty. Failure to act would make them complicit in their continent’s ongoing economic marginalization.
With friendlier tariffs and a bold decision to invest in infrastructure in Africa, President Trump can open up a new frontier in Africa as President Jimmy Carter of blessed memory did when he visited China 25 years after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II and the Vietnam War. That visit was subsequently followed by his successor Richard Nixon in 1972, thus opening up China to the US and, by extension, the world for trade via the establishment of diplomatic relations between the US and China in 1979. Owing to that initiative, consolidated by another US president Bill Clinton in the year 2000 by granting China Permanent Trade Relations (NTR) status, today the US and China control 44.2% of global nominal GDP. Because Africa comprises 54 nations, boasts an estimated 1.5 billion people and is home to over 30% of the world’s natural resources, it makes a compelling case for President Trump to consider doing in Africa what Jimmy Carter started, Richard Nixon actualized and Bill Clinton consolidated leading to the pivotal role that China is playing in the world today. For emphasis, Africa and its humongous resources can similarly be harnessed for the mutual benefit of the continent and the world if President Trump takes the bold leap of faith of offering the continent the lifeline that past US presidents Carter, Nixon, and Clinton gave China in 1972- some 50 years ago.
The logic extends beyond charity for Africa as it makes business sense not just charity to stop seeing Africa as a potential new frontier by executing a plan that can pivot the potential to reality.
Meanwhile, Trump’s early 145% tariffs on China had shocked global markets but were later reduced after high-level negotiations—an example of his tactic of setting extreme initial terms to drive engagement. It is a gesture that Trump has extended as the last pause just expired.
Similar patterns have played out with the EU, which narrowly avoided a major tariff hike by reopening talks. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has since pledged to meet the August 1 deadline, signaling that even reluctant partners recognize the need to adapt. The EU has since struck a deal with the US.
Hopefully, at the end of the new pause for China, a deal would have been struck.
In this context, Trump’s strategy—mixing hard deadlines with room for renegotiation—underscores that America First is not isolationist. Rather, it is a recalibration of global trade and diplomacy that insists on fairness while still seeking cooperative solutions.

The rapprochement between the US and the EU is hardly surprising, given that transatlantic trade currently stands at an impressive $606 billion—larger than the combined value of US trade with its northern neighbors, Mexico and Canada, and even greater than the total of US trade with China and Japan combined.
This immense trade volume gives the EU significant leverage in negotiations with Washington. However, with President Trump poised to take a harder line—convinced that the EU has long taken advantage of the US, resulting in a persistent trade deficit in Europe’s favor—European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen determined to prevent Trump’s metaphorical axe from falling on the continent, closed the deal before the deadline.
So far, nine countries have signed new agreements. The UK, in a gesture of goodwill from Trump to the King of England, was granted a 10% tariff rate. Brazil, however, faces a 50% tariff, South Korea 15%, and India 25%—the latter two penalized for continuing to buy oil from Russia despite international sanctions over its invasion of Ukraine.

Ahead of Trump’s trade deadlines, several nations—including EU members, South Korea, and India—renegotiated their tariff terms with Washington, resulting in rates rising from a uniform 10% to between 15% and 50%. These are the highest levels since the Great Depression.

Many critics initially believed Trump’s tariff war would backfire, harming the US economy. Yet, despite fears, GDP growth has risen to 3%. Skeptics who had argued that Trump’s sweeping trade tariffs would plunge the US economy into recession are now projecting that the real economic pain has been delayed because manufacturers and retailers have yet to fully pass on higher costs to consumers.

One thing is certain: Trump has profoundly reshaped the global trade landscape, wielding economic policy as a tool of national security. He has even threatened higher tariffs on Canada for its plans to recognize Palestine—following the example of France, the UK, Canada, and most recently, Australia.
Clearly, the whole world is now metaphorically dancing to the tune being dictated by President Trump leveraging economic security to achieve global security.
Undeniably, Trump is turning out to be one of the world’s greatest reformers. Irrespective of the fact that his reforms were initially derided and rejected by Americans and indeed critics across the world who felt that his reforms were capable of disrupting the old world order and would spell doom for humankind.
As things currently stand, if Trump ends the Russia-Ukraine war and brings peace to the Middle East by resolving the Israeli-Hamas horrific bloodshed leveraging his unconventional method of using economic security to achieve global security,

As Christina Aguilera, a US.song writer, noted: “The roughest road often leads to the top.”
What the statement above suggests is that meaningful reform often requires difficult choices and hard work but ultimately leads to a more prosperous and resilient nation.

According to Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary General, “Reform is a process, and not an event.” That wise admonition underscores the idea that reform is an ongoing process that requires effort and dedication, rather than a single event or decision.

Furthermore, the perspective offered by Catherine the Great, empress of Russia from 1762-1796, known for her impressive reign and cultural achievements: “It is better to inspire a reform than to enforce it.” is quite instructive in the current circumstances. It suggests that inspiring reform can be more effective than forcing it, highlighting the importance of leadership and vision in driving positive change.
Circling back to Nigeria, and drawing a parallel between reformist President Trump of the US and President Bola Tinubu who has engaged in reforms since he took office on May 29, 2023, is a little over two years ago, reformers always face resistance humans often fear the unknown are always happy to remain in their comfort zones.
Hence, it is unsurprising that Tinubu’s reforms were greeted with cynicism by some Nigerians weary of a period of failed government promises of a better life by previous administrations.
Ending over four decades long fuel and subsidy, boosting the foreign exchange reserve in the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN from $34 billion in 2023 to $40 billion this year and increasing the funds going to the states for the development of the rural areas by governors sometimes as much as threefold, and the boost in non-oil exports by as much as $3.225 billion are some positive outcomes of Tinubu’s reforms. All of these have resulted in the stabilization of the naira enhanced by the boost in crude oil production which has climbed from a low of roughly 1.3 million barrels per day in 2023 to about 1.8 million this year not forgetting the stability of the naira which cures business uncertainty.
But, as encouraging as these outlined developments are, due to skepticism arising from the hardship associated with the reforms, Tinubu is not being given the flowers that he should have been receiving.
The question is: By the time he completes his reforms and term in office, would President Donald J Trump be the new President George Washington of America in terms of positive and consequential impact?
And would President Bola Tinubu leave a type of positive legacy in the manner that Nelson Mandela left huge positive imprints in the sands of time in South Africa?
Given the rainbow forming on the horizon in the US, the world, and Nigeria through the reform efforts of Trump regarding the US and the world through sweeping trade tariff changes, and Tinubu in Nigeria who has ended entrenched obnoxious policies respectfully, one can not help but be optimistic about a better lease of life awaiting the world, Americans and Nigerians.

Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, development strategist, and alumnus of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Massachusetts, USA, is a Commonwealth Institute scholar and a former commissioner in the Delta State government. He sent this piece from Lagos.