The fast-growing Latino community in the United States became one of the most influential voting groups of this decade. The article shows how President Obama used the endorsement of Hispanic celebrities through viral videos and fundraisers to win among this community, while acknowledging and comparing this case to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016, during which he could not count on the celebrities of Latin descent. The article tries to answer the question whether Hollywood can or cannot influence the ethnic voting groups and why this way of canvassing is only possible for the Democratic Party.

The Belt and Road Initiative as a challenge for American interests in the Asia-Pacific region

The Asia-Pacific region occupies a key place in the international strategy of the United States. It was not without a reason that George W. Bush spoke about the “Pacific Century”, Barack H. Obama announced a strategic “pivot to Asia”, while Donald Trump went on a 12-day journey through East Asia. In particular, as the power of the People’s Republic of China increased, its importance gained a whole new dimension. At present, the USA and the PRC are conducting a sophisticated game on the “big Asia and Pacific chessboard”. China aspires to be an equal partner for economically and politically weakened United States. Assertively and unobtrusively, primarily with the use of diplomatic and economic instruments, China strengthens its international position. One of the manifestations of the expansion of Chinese influence in the world is growing and constant commitment to promoting the Belt and Road Initiative, which has become the most important symbol of the political ambition of President Xi Jinping. The article entitled “The Belt and Road Initiative as a challenge for American interests in the Asia-Pacific region” is an attempt at interdisciplinary consideration about the changing position of the Asia-Pacific region in foreign policy and US security strategy, as well as the consequences of the promoted BRI initiative for American interests. The basic research goal is to present, compare and explain the position of the administration of President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump against the Chinese concept of Belt and Road based on their adopted strategic documents, speeches and ongoing media discourse. The authors will consider how the United States reacted to the announcement by the President of the PRC of the Belt and Road initiative in 2013? Why and to what extent do the US counteract the Chinese concept of BRI?

The aim of this article is to present the main motives, assumptions and dimensions of the US foreign policy towards the People’s Republic of China during the Trump presidency. The essence and purposefulness of the slogans, threats and attacks used by Donald Trump. Checking useness of the slogans „America First” and „make America great again” in the 2016 election campaign and while in office; their implications for the most serious structural competitor in the international arena, which is already the People’s Republic of China on many levels. In the author’s opinion, the turn of successive US presidential offices towards the PRC and the Asia-Pacific region in recent years is dictated not only by economic factors, but also by a wide range of collision paths and serves to maintain the position of the US hegemon in the region in the face of the growing power of the PRC. When Trump took office in 2017, he used the Chinese threat as the cornerstone of foreign policy. To illustrate the nature of the involvement of the Trump against PRC the focus was on the dimensions of the analyzed issue: mainly diplomatic and mutual economic relations , especially blast of trade war and less military aspects. Article shows what measures were applied under the so-called the trade war between the US and the PRC and the evolution of the measures used. The continuity of US-China relations by successive presidents was also noted, and it was considered whether the relations are clearly doomed to confrontation. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the manifestations of the changes taking place in US foreign policy during the Trump presidency. The hypothesis of the work is that the American turn towards the PRC is inevitable, and it is dictated to a large extent not only by purely economic factors, but this turn serves to maintain the strong position of the US in the region in the face of the growing imperialist tendencies of Chinese power. Analysing the most important affairs allows to identify and understand the main principles of the United States’ actual foreign policy.

The election of Joseph Biden for the office of the President of the United States has brought expectations of fundamental change in American foreign policy, including policy toward the Asia-Pacific/Indo-Pacific region. As observed in the last few months, the reality has been more complex as definite changes in the US Indo-Pacific policy are not as visible as expected. It is especially in respect of the US policy toward China being more a continuation than a change from Donald Trump’s approach. Changes are rhetorical rather than actual policies. The situation is different in the case of alliances, as Joe Biden offers much more commitment to allies like Japan or South Korea. Also, multilateral dimensions (both regional and global) witness some – however still limited – change. The main goal is to make a comparative analysis of Joe Biden’s policy toward Asia, referring to the administrations of Barack Obama and Donald Trump. Hence the strategies of pivot/re-balance toward the Asia of Obama, and the free and open Indo-Pacific strategy of Trump, will be examined. The analysis refers to the complex interdependence theory and the power transition theory. Methodologically, it is based on document analysis with comparative analysis.

Strategic ambiguity, or the deliberate policy of uncertainty as to whether the United States would use force to defend Taiwan against an invasion by the People's Republic of China, has been the centrepiece of US policy towards the Taiwan issue for decades. This paper discusses the factors driving the redefinition of strategic ambiguity and its recalibration throughout Donald Trump's presidency (2017–2021). The fundamental driver of this change was to balance the rising power of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The paper applied offensive realism as a theoretical framework for its analysis. Under President Donald Trump, Washington modified its policy of strategic ambiguity, explicitly framing relations with Taiwan within a broader Indo-Pacific strategy. While the US retained key elements of strategic ambiguity, including the 'One China' policy, it added new features to deploy it offensively against Beijing's growing regional hegemony. The increased dynamism and unpredictability of relations with Taiwan were matched by a welcoming attitude towards strengthening Taiwanese identity and highlighting the systemic differences between communist China and democratic Taiwan. America stepped up arms sales and encouraged Taiwan to build its self-defence capabilities. Washington engaged in countering Chinese attempts to isolate Taiwan internationally and included it in restructuring global supply chains. Although the United States has not formally revised the boundaries of the 'One China' policy, the modification of strategic ambiguity increased Taiwan's prominence in US-China power competition and pushed back the prospect of peaceful unification.

The paper is an exploration of using unilateral presidential powers by Donald Trump. The Author hypothesizes that Trump, due to his lack of political experience, was less keen on detailed negotiations of legislative projects with Congress, and more willing to act unilaterally. Analyzing frequency of issuing selected unilateral directives by American presidents since Jimmy Carter, the Author claims that Trump was moderate user of unilateral tools, as several of his immediate predecessors issued more unilateral directives. However, Trump was most eager to act unilaterally in his fourth year of the presidency, due to emergency and national security concerns after the pandemic hit the United States.

This paper aims to explore the correlation between rhetoric, political views, and actions and how the construction of utterances conveys ideological meaning. Specifically, I examine the nature of rhetoric, its structure, and its impact on the overall tone of an utterance. The analysis reveals that rhetorical devices can manipulate and create messages promoting segregation and discrimination. To illustrate this, I focus on D. Trump’s statements, particularly his use of Twitter to communicate. I analyze his selection of vocabulary and figures of speech, demonstrating his use of hate speech and misogynistic and racist thoughts. Drawing on the work of prominent linguists such as T. Van Dijk, R. Harris, and M. Reisigl, I examine the rhetorical devices used by Trump and their influence on the overall message conveyed. I support the analysis with press publications, articles, and books that provide further insight into Trump’s language use. The conclusions summarize my findings and emphasize the link between rhetoric and political actions and views.

The article examines President Donald Trump’s leadership through the lenses of Bernard M. Bass’s model of transformational leadership. It starts with a description of what transformational leadership is and what it consists of. Second, the author takes a look at some of the features of transformational leadership, such as high ethical conduct, arousing team spirit, and inclusion of followers, and applies them to Trump. Finally, the author discusses the results of the analysis and explains why these findings are important and thought-provoking. The peculiar novelty of the study lies in the use of the theory and model of transformational leadership, developed by Bass and formulated on the basis of the science of management and organization. This is one of the innovative elements that distinguish the author’s project from previous works on political leadership.

Megalothymic subjectivity as a result of populist narrative strategies

The article addresses the phenomenon of megalothymic subjectivity as an indirect effect of the systemic weakness of modern liberal democracy. By using Donald Trump’s narrative strategies as an example, the author shows how populism creates in voters’ minds an imagined reality of conspiracy, danger, and loss of human decency. The process of populist communication takes the form of a story with an upcoming decisive moment, the victory of good or evil. A voter being shaped in such manner sees himself both as a part of a significant and strong community and as a victim of hostile actions of politicians on the national and international scene. The voter in such a position begins to manifest attitudes indicating a desire to regain his supposedly lost subjectivity, the extreme manifestation of which was the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

The Middle East conflict, or more specifically, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been destabilizing the region for many decades now. With time it became transparent that the bilateral talks of the conflicted actors were not realistic, and a mediator was necessary. Due to the unfolding events of the Cold War and US global domination as a result, the following American Presidents were attempting to bring Israel and Palestine to the negotiation table and resolve the conflict. The efforts have failed. In this paper I will analyze a new idea for the Middle East proposed by Donald Trump and continued by Joe Biden – The Abraham Accords. The new strategy aims at building a bilateral platform for cooperation between Israel and the Arab states of the region. While the initial target for the authors of this initiative was to normalize Israeli-Arab relations and as a consequence, stabilize the region. This paper analyzes the place of Palestine in this Middle East stabilization attempt and its future. In light of the American Abraham Accords initiative, the outcome of a final solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is bleak since it only addresses certain issues like development and promoting living standards (which might be accomplished by building Israeli-Arab relations), but, in the foreseeable future, fails to address the most crucial issues – the future of Jerusalem, Israeli settlement building and the Palestinian refugee crises.