The Geopolitics of Trump’s Inauguration Speech
The geopolitical references in the inaugural address of the new US President closely align with the concept of “classic geopolitics,” which frames international relations as a zero-sum game
Trump articulates America’s new Golden Age as being for America alone. His isolationist neo-Monroism makes this abundantly clear
The inaugural speech of President Donald Trump, delivered on January 20, 2025, has impressed many commentators due to its unconventional tone and seemingly disorganized structure. However, the speech lends itself to various interpretations, one of which is grounded in geopolitics.
Real and symbolic meanings of “space” and its control, as a function of security and statecraft, emerge throughout.
The End of Global America
A clear geographic perspective appears in Trump’s anti-global vision of the US’s position on the world’s map. This is evident from his initial declaration: “The Golden Age of America begins right now.”
But which America? Not the one that served as a guarantor of the world order achieved through international cooperation and mutual respect, as envisioned at Bretton Woods in 1944. Instead, “Global America” is over.
Trump articulates America’s new Golden Age as being for America alone. His isolationist neo-Monroism makes this abundantly clear. The entire speech contains barely any reference to the international community. When it does, the “outside” is framed primarily as a potential or real threat—yet another nod to the concept of “space.”
According to Trump, America’s Golden Age will be built around two concepts deeply embedded in geopolitical discourse: sovereignty and safety.
Sovereignty: Trump stresses the importance of prioritizing American borders and resources over foreign commitments, condemning “the horrible betrayal” by a “perverted oligarchy that has given unlimited funding to the defense of foreign borders [Ukrainian perhaps? editor’s note] but refuses to defend American borders.”
Safety is tied to economic enrichment, achieved through the exploitation of America’s natural resources (“drill, baby, drill”), and protection against external threats (“aliens”). The emphasis on sovereignty and safety over borders, land, and resources underscores the speech’s deeply geopolitical tone.
The theme of geographic boundaries resurfaces with Trump’s steady references to “natural borders.” These ideals retain emotional resonance despite their anachronism, such as the notion of a “Gulf of America”—a clear nod to the geopolitical idea of buffer zones, reminiscent of China’s nine-dash line in the South China Sea. Similarly, renaming Alaska’s highest peak, Denali, back to McKinley, symbolically reasserts US control over its northern frontier.
Another geopolitical element of Trump’s speech is the aggressive focus on controlling strategic physical infrastructure. His reference to the Panama Canal, one of the most historically “imperialist” geopolitical acts in US history, illustrates the projection of power through both military and trade capabilities.
A Return to Classic Geopolitics
Toward the end of the speech, Trump invokes an outdated, Darwinian vision of statecraft. The State is portrayed as a “living organism” that must expand, even at the expense of weaker entities. While the term Lebensraum is not explicitly mentioned, its implications linger ominously. The speech does, however, explicitly reference the notion of “manifest destiny.”
Trump also emphasizes space not only as a physical resource but as a construct imbued with political meaning. This is evident in his renaming of Denali and his ambitious rhetoric about “pushing forward” frontiers, culminating in his vision of planting the American flag on Mars (licit question: this time, again “for all mankind”?).
The geopolitical references in Trump’s inaugural address are troubling because they mirror the principles of classic geopolitics: a worldview rooted in resource appropriation, exploitation, conflict, and competition. This vision prioritizes force, power asymmetry, and survival of the fittest, echoing the ideas of Charles Darwin.
This approach starkly contrasts with the cooperative international order that began taking shape 80 years ago, after a global conflict largely fueled by similar visions of geography, power, and politics. Trump’s rhetoric, as conveyed in his inaugural address, signals a potential return to those dangerous dynamics.
Andrea Colli
As a historian, his research interests range from economic, business, and global history subjects, including the history of international relations and geopolitics. He has published and edited several books and articles in several leading history journals. Currently, he is doing research on the persistence of state capitalism in Europe and on the role of state-owned enterprises in European capitalism as instruments of governance. He is past president of the European Business History Association, and currently the President of ASSI, the Association of Italian Business Historians.
Video: Trump is Back: What is the Future of the EU-US Relationship?
On the inauguration day of Donald Trump’s second presidency, IEP@BU hosted a digital event to discuss the findings of a recent Eupinions survey on the EU-US relationship and their implications.
What was the impact of Trump’s first presidency on transatlantic relations? How has European public opinion on the reliability of the US evolved? And what do Americans think about the EU?
If you’d like to learn more, you can read the presentation of the Eupinions survey here: Old Habits Die Hard: Remaking the Transatlantic Partnership in EU and US Public Opinion
Speakers:
Catherine De Vries (IEP@BU)
Isabell Hoffmann (eupinions, Bertelsmann Stiftung)
Moderator:
Stefano Feltri (IEP@BU)
IEP@BU Events
Which EU Defense Spending to Address the War in Ukraine and Russia?
January 30, 2:30 PM-3:30 PM - ONLINE
A Conversation Based on the IEP@BU Policy Brief: Before Vegetius – Critical Questions for European Defense
There is broad consensus on the need for the EU to increase its defense spending and strengthen its military capabilities. What remains less clear, however, is the ultimate objective of such an effort.
Should the EU’s top priority be to support Ukraine’s resistance in the short term, or to build a robust deterrence—primarily against Russia—over the medium term? Can it effectively pursue both goals simultaneously? And when it comes to the eastern front, what security approach should the EU adopt?
Drawing on the recent IEP@BU Policy Brief Before Vegetius: Critical Questions for European Defense, this discussion will explore how the EU can address these pressing strategic challenges.
Speakers:
Olesya Vinhas de Souza, a leading defense analyst with expertise in Russian security issues and cybersecurity at the NATO Defense Council.
Andrea Gilli, lecturer in Strategic Studies at the University of St Andrews, IEP@BU research fellow, and co-author of the IEP@BU Policy Brief Before Vegetius: Critical Questions for European Defense.
Stefano Feltri, IEP@BU communication advisor.
Please, REGISTER HERE
When Will Germany Be Back?
February 24, 2:30 PM-3:30 PM - ONLINE
The day after the federal snap election, we will explore the European consequences of the vote against the backdrop of Germany’s economic challenges.
In November 2024, a coalition government collapsed when Chancellor Olaf Scholz dismissed Finance Minister Christian Lindner, highlighting Germany’s ongoing struggle to balance its political ambitions, renewed security priorities, and stringent budget rules.
For the first time in decades, the European Union faces a dual leadership vacuum in Germany and France—two pivotal member states in EU politics.
Meanwhile, geopolitical and economic challenges continue to escalate: the war in Ukraine demands unwavering commitment from the EU's leading states and institutions, and Donald Trump’s return to power introduces uncertainty to global economic and multilateral governance.
Join us as we debrief the European implications of the German federal elections with Wolfgang Munchau and Diana Pieper.
Speakers:
Wolfgang Munchau is one of the foremost commentators on EU economic and political affairs. He is the director of Eurointelligence and the author of the recent book Kaput: The End of the German Miracle.
Diana Pieper is a Berlin-based journalist with Die Welt and an IEP@BU Media Fellow.
Stefano Feltri, IEP@BU communication advisor, will moderate the conversation.
Please, REGISTER HERE
The IEP@BU Mission
Founded by Bocconi University and Institute Javotte Bocconi, the Institute for European Policymaking @ Bocconi University combines the analytic rigor of a research institute, the policy impact of a think tank, and the facts-based effort of raising public opinion’s awareness about Europe through outreach activities. The Institute, fully interdisciplinary, intends to address the multi-fold obstacles that usually stand between the design of appropriate policies and their adoption, with particular attention to consensus building and effective enforcement.
The Institute’s mission is to conduct, debate and disseminate high-quality research on the major policy issues facing Europe, and the EU in particular, its Member States and its citizens, in a rapidly changing world.
It is independent from any business or political influence.
The IEP@BU Management Council
Catherine De Vries, Dean for International Affairs and Professor of Political Science at Bocconi University
Daniel Gros, IEP@BU Director
Sylvie Goulard, IEP@BU vice-President, Professor of Practice in Global affairs at SDA Bocconi School of Management
Silvia Colombo, IEP@BU Deputy Director
Carlo Altomonte, Associate Professor at Bocconi University and Associate Dean for Stakeholder Engagement Programs at SDA Bocconi School of Management
Valentina Bosetti, professor of Environmental and Climate Change Economics at Bocconi University
Elena Carletti, Dean for Research and Professor of Finance at Bocconi University
Eleanor Spaventa, Professor of European Union Law at Bocconi Law School
 | A guest post by
|