The Day After Tomorrow: The US Democratic Party’s Uncertain Future

This article sheds light on what the Democratic Party’s uncertain future means for the private sector

The second Trump presidency marks a deeper realignment in American politics. Hence, frustrated by decades of stagnant wages, deindustrialization, and political gridlock, many voters have embraced Trump’s message of disruption. In response, the administration has moved quickly to dismantle long-standing trade agreements, withdraw from traditional alliances, and reassert an unapologetically America First agenda. As Washington retreats from its role as chief architect of the liberal international order, rival powers are seizing the opportunity to deepen economic ties and forge strategic partnerships beyond the reach of U.S. leadership (The Wall Street Journal, 2025). This rapid shift toward multipolarity signals more than a policy change; it reflects a structural reordering of global power that may shape the international system for decades to come.

While multipolarity appears to be a lasting feature of global politics, Trump’s brand of transactionalism is likely to prove less durable. Meanwhile, his popularity may shape the Grand Old Party’s (GOP) next nominee, but his presidency remains constitutionally limited. This gives Democrats a distinct opportunity to offer a foreign policy vision that transcends both liberal orthodoxy and Republican unilateralism. Conversely, this article explores how a Democratic successor might approach international strategy differently and its impact on global commerce.

A Changed Strategic Landscape

A Democratic president entering office in 2029 will face a world where U.S. influence, both economic and diplomatic, is under sustained pressure. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the U.S. share of global GDP (measured in purchasing power parity) has declined from roughly 20 percent in 2000 to around 14.5 percent in 2025 (IMF, 2025).

This economic shift reflects a broader realignment in the global order. Additionally, regional blocs are asserting themselves, with China, the EU, and much of the Global South promoting new trade corridors and alternative currency arrangements. Since 2022, dozens of countries have taken formal steps to reduce their reliance on the U.S. dollar in cross-border transactions (Atlantic Council, 2025).

At the same time, American soft power is eroding. Pew Research polling from 2023 shows U.S. favourability has dropped below 40 percent in key emerging markets such as Indonesia, Brazil, and South Africa, countries that are central to future global growth (Pew Research Center, 2025).

For U.S. companies operating abroad, this convergence of reduced influence, rising regionalism, and declining public trust creates a more volatile risk environment. It increases the likelihood of tighter regulations, limited market access, and political backlash in places that were once reliably pro-American.

Three Strategic Paths for Democrats

Faced with this new geopolitical landscape, Democrats have three competing options. Each presents different implications for U.S. global strategy and private sector exposure.

1. Liberal Restoration: This path aims to return to the pre-Trump foreign policy model. It involves rejoining multilateral agreements, rebuilding traditional alliances, and recommitting to free trade (New Democrat Coalition, 2025). This approach might restore predictability for global markets and stabilise transatlantic regulation. However, it risks appearing out of step with a domestic electorate that has grown wary of globalisation and with emerging powers that are no longer willing to accept U.S. leadership on old terms.
2. Progressive Realignment: A more ambitious option, tying foreign policy to progressive domestic goals. It prioritises climate action, stronger rules for corporations, and global labor standards (Century Foundation, 2024). This model may appeal to younger voters and ESG-driven investors, but it could increase compliance costs and provoke pushback from countries skeptical of value-based conditions.
3. Strategic Realism: The most pragmatic approach focuses on interest-based cooperation and national resilience. It accepts a multipolar world and seeks to shape it through industrial policy, regional partnerships, and economic de-risking (Center for the National Interest, n.d.). This strategy, reflected in Biden’s late-term push for industrial strength and reduced dependence on China, offers a balance between stability and adaptability (Financial Times, 2024). For companies, it provides a clearer framework for managing risk without large-scale disruptions to investment and supply chains.

Risks and Priorities for the Private Sector

Regardless of which direction Democrats take, businesses should prepare for continued geopolitical volatility. Three priorities stand out:

1. 1. Engage Early and Often: Private sector engagement will shape how future policy takes form. Companies should proactively work with U.S. agencies, global regulators, and standard-setters to stay ahead of changes.
   2. Build Flexibility into Risk Models: U.S. foreign policy no longer guarantees consistency. Firms need to diversify supply chains, localise operations where possible, and prepare for unpredictable shifts in the regulatory environment.
   3. Watch the Policy-Market Disconnect: In a divided political environment, policy can change faster than market expectations. This is particularly important in sectors like AI, energy, and finance, where small regulatory changes can have outsized effects on cost and competitiveness.

The Democratic Party’s next approach to foreign policy will not emerge in isolation. Instead, it will unfold in a world reshaped by multipolarity, rising skepticism toward U.S. influence, and a private sector already adjusting to new rules and expectations. Thus, whether Democrats pursue restoration, reinvention, or realism, global companies will need to manage the risks and adapt quickly.

Political uncertainty is no longer a secondary concern. It is a central factor in the future of international business.

Bibliography

Atlantic Council GeoEconomics Center (2025) Dollar Dominance Monitor. Atlantic Council. Available at: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/programs/geoeconomics-center/dollar-dominancemonitor/ (Accessed: 18 July 2025).

Center for the National Interest (n.d.) Mission, Center for the National Interest. Available at: https:// cftni.org/about/mission/ (Accessed: 18 July 2025).

Century Foundation (2024) A Blueprint for a Progressive U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East, 15 July. Available at: https://tcf.org/content/report/a-blueprint-for-a-progressive-u-s-foreign-policyin-the-middle-east/ (Accessed: 18 July 2025).

Financial Times (2024) How national security has transformed economic policy, 10 months ago. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/6068310d-4e01-42df-8b10-ef6952804604 (Accessed: 18  July 2025).

International Monetary Fund (2025) GDP based on PPP share of world (%), United States – World

Economic Outlook Database, April 2025. Available at: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/ PPPSH@WEO/USA?zoom=USA&highlight=USA (Accessed: 18 July 2025).

New Democrat Coalition (2025) Trade, New Democrat Coalition. Available at: https:// newdemocratcoalition.house.gov/policy/issues/trade (Accessed: 18 July 2025).

Pew Research Center (2025) Views of the U.S. have worsened while opinions of China have improved in many surveyed countries, 15 July. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/shortreads/2025/07/15/views-of-the-us-have-worsened-while-opinions-of-china-have-improved-inmany-surveyed-countries/ (Accessed: 18 July 2025).

The Wall Street Journal (2025) Trump Is Overturning the World Order That America Built, 7 March. Available at: https://www.wsj.com/world/trump-is-overturning-the-world-order-thatamerica-built-10981637 (Accessed: 18 July 2025).