In classical and contemporary international politics and relations, Britain is the only country that has the qualifying word, ‘Great,’ before its name, Great Britain. For various historical reasons, Great Britain has become a house-hold name. The United States used to be referred to as ‘great power’ before World War II, after which it is being referred to as a ‘superpower.’ When Donald Trump first came to power and made ‘America First’ as his domestic and foreign policy pillar, the general impression was about the need for prioritization of policy attitude, that is, in whatever is to be gained in terms of benefits, America should be the first priority. This policy is quite reasonable as a development objective.
At the second coming of Donald Trump, the policy of ‘America First’ was re-defined as ‘Make America Great Again’ (MAGA). Without jot of doubt, the United States’ influence in global politics has been on the decline for some time. The world that shifted from Sovieto-American bipolarity to American unipolarity is now moving towards multipolarity, with the emergence of EU and BRICS as new centres of power. In responding to these challenges, President Donald Trump has opted for the use of manu militari to ‘Make America Great Again,’ as if it is only the use of force that makes or that can make the people of America great. ‘Gulf of Guinea’ was renamed ‘Gulf of America’ by fiat. President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela was kidnapped by Donald Trump in a terrorist fashion. Donald Trump told Europeans at the 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland that European countries were historically provinces of the United States and that Denmark’s Greenland would be forcefully acquired by the United States, even though he later rejected the idea of use of force.
European reply was another MAGA: ‘Make America Go Away.’ MAGA hats, caps, are being made to campaign against President Trump. Apart from these two versions of MAGA, Maga also has different meanings elsewhere: it is a slang in Nigeria, meaning ‘easily fooled,’ or ‘sucker.’ It means ‘lies’ in Zulu language, dragon in Sudanese, and sorceress and female magician in Italian. Grosso modo, MAGA, as a word, has more of a negative connotation than goodness. Trump’s MAGA is an embodiment of negativity in various ramifications.
Donald Trumps’s MAGA and Europe’s MAGA
If Donald Trump’s MAGA is not negativistic in design and implementation, there wouldn’t have been any basis for the growing animosity vis-à-vis the good people of America. There wouldn’t have been any need for redefining MAGA à la Europa. First, at the level of Donald Trump, his change from ‘America First’ to MAGA might have been compelled by criticisms of ‘America First’ policy which is not only seen as an excessive ‘national protectionism,’ but also considered to be detrimental to multilateralism and collective interests.
As conceived, MAGA cannot but have some intrinsic meanings: first, that America used to, but is no more, great; second, as a result of the loss of the greatness, the need for the restoration of the greatness has become a desideratum; and third, that there is the need to Make America Great Again.’ How does President Trump want to make America great again? Is it by Fela Anikulapo’s type of Roforofo fight? Is it by diplomatic negotiation or by manu militari? Is it by dog fight or by outright aggression?
Based on the various experiences so far, it can be rightly argued that the method of making America great again is by use of force, by manu militari, by aggression, by dictatorship, and by policies of indecency. And true enough, it should be recalled here that President Trump has signed an Executive Order which renamed the Department of Defence as Department of War. What does this mean, especially in light of Nigeria-US bilateral relationships? The name, Department of Defence, has been existing since its creation in 1949. Under a normal circumstance, no renaming can be legally done without an act of Congress. President Trump did the renaming by an Executive Order, by fiat. How can a President that wants to be crowned with a Nobel Prize for Peace be talking in terms of belligerency? Trump prefers ‘Department of War’ to ‘Department of Peace’ and even to ‘Department of Defence.’ If Trump wants belligerency, why should observers of US politics and foreign policy be complaining about his anti-United Nations activities? The United Nations was set up primarily to help maintain international peace and security, and by so doing, prevent a new scourge of war. Most unfortunately, those countries who gave themselves the right of veto in order to help maintain international peace are precisely the ones threatening global peace.
In Nigeria, the National War College (NWC), established in the Jabi District of Abuja is the apex military training institution for senior officers. As a war college, emphasis was more on war-making. However, in 1992, the NWC was renamed National Defence College (NDC). As NDC, emphasis shifted to training for regional and UN Peace Support Operations (PSO), especially in the ECOWAS region. An 11-month strategic curriculum peace and security, war studies, leadership for military, police and civilians was put in place. The NDC should not be confused with the Army War College Nigeria (AWCN), which was established in 2017 to develop operational-level and skill of Nigerian Army officers. The NDC is for strategy while the AWCN is for operational guidance.
What informed the renaming of Department of Defence to Department of War in the United States and the National War College to National Defence College in Nigeria? From the Trumpian perspective, the renaming ‘sends a message of victory, it really sends a message of strength, a message that we are strong, much stronger than anyone would really understand (vide CBS News, Chicago, YouTube, 6 September 2025). His Secretary of Defence, now Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, has it that ‘the Department of War gonna fight decisively, not in these conflicts, it’s gonna fight to win and not to lose. We have to go on the offensive and not on the defensive.’ The renaming in the context of the United States is to show a military strength braggadocio, meant to deter threats and warn whoever might be thinking of threatening the peace of America to begin to think twice and weigh the likely consequences of their threats.
US MAGA is considered by some observers as an ideology and by some as a movement. As a movement, MAGA wants to make America quite ‘strong, wealthy, proud, and safe again.’ This objective is believed to be attainable by addressing illegal immigration offshoring of jobs, and national debt. The Movement uses the iconic symbol of the red baseball cap. As an ideology, MAGA is a quest to return to traditional values of strengthened military, secure international borders, and traditional gender roles. Apart from the usage of MAGA to also refer to the political base of Donald Trump, MAGA, in the mania of the Americans, has now become a subject of diplomatic imbroglio.
Additionally, President Trump, with all his Executive Orders, has consciously disregarded rule of law and due process at the domestic level, and total disregard for jus gentium at the international level. Thus, President Trump is simply sending a notice to the whole world that United States’ MAGA cannot but be driven by belligerency. This also largely explains why EU leaders have re-defined their own MAGA as a protest and rejection: ‘Make America Go Away.’ The implication of this is that Europeans are showing preparedness for a diplomatic row with the Washingtonian authorities.
Without iota of doubt, Making America Great Again (MAGA) is a follow up to the policy of ‘America First.’ Both of them have the common objective of making the United States greater territorially, greater in influence, and greater in power and knowledge. America First as a policy objective during the first coming of Donald Trump as U.S. President placed emphasis on U.S. national interest, economic nationalism, and protectionist trade above any globalist and multilateral commitments. The policy sought to strengthen the military, reduce or jettison foreign engagements, reduce foreign assistance and promoting transactional international relations.
Put differently, President Trump wants every foreign policy endeavor, economic transaction, development aid, etc., to first be of great benefit to the people of America. We do not find any big problem with this nationalistic agenda. It is not different from Nigeria’s Foreign Minister Oluyemi Adeniji’s redefinition of Professor Ibrahim Agboola Gambari’s foreign policy concentricism. Ambassador Adeniji underscored the need for beneficial gains for Nigerians in every concentric circle we may be talking about. He called it constructive and beneficial concentricism. In fact, the current Foreign Minister, Ambassador Yusuf Maitama Tuggar, is also pursuing a foreign policy of strategic autonomy, which is nothing more than the pursuit of self-reliance and self-projection. United States’ MAGA is also about self-reliance and self-projection. It is against this background that the U.S. policy attitude of asking Member Signatories of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to increase their defence spending to 2% of their GDP, as well as insisting on their adoption of policies aimed at containing the influence of China and Russia, should not only be clearly understood but also the likelihood of the BoP replacing the United Nations should be explained.
Board of Peace versus the United Nations
The Board of Peace (BoP) is an initiative taken by President Donald Trump to initially resolve the conflict in Gaza before the scope was widened to accommodate other conflicts. The initiative is quite interesting because of the many problems created in an attempt to bring about peace. As provided for in Chapter 1 of the BoP Charter, ‘the Board of Peace is an international organization that seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance and secure enduring peace in areas afflicted or threatened by conflict.’ More important, the Board of Peace ‘shall undertake such peace-building functions, including the development and dissemination of best practices capable of being applied by all nations and communities seeking peace.’
Restoring dependable and lawful governance is quite questionable. It is not possible to restore a dependable and lawful governance that had not existed. President Trump is not on record to be an adherent of lawful governance. Trump’s behavioural practices are far from being considered as best practices. They raise two problems: is the BoP strictly meant for the resolution of the problem in Gaza Strip or it is designed as a possible replacement of the United Nations? Additionally, does the BoP not have the potential to further marginalize Sub-Saharan Africa whether or not the BoP replaces the United Nations? The experiences of the BoP have pointed to the likelihood of an anti-UN movement. First, concerning the membership of the BoP, it is actually a one-man organization in which the members are meant to be spectators. No State can be a member or accede to the Charter of the BoP unless invited by the Chairman, Donald Trump. Put differently, there is only one original member, and that is President Trump himself. He extended invitation to some world leaders to join him ‘on the panel tasked with overseeing the post-war management of Gaza.’ The Charter of the BoP was attached to the invitation letter. Thus, President Trump is not only the originating member, he is also the determiner of who qualifies to be a member and who should be accepted. The implication is that there are two levels of original members. The first original member is Trump and all those leaders who accept the Charter as proposed and given are still original members, not only by invitation, but also by accession.
More significantly, membership can be permanent or non-permanent. Membership is for only three years with the possibility of renewal. The payment of $1 billion is required to qualify to be a Permanent Member. As explained in Article 2 (c) of the BoP Charter, ‘each Member State shall serve a term of no more than three years from this Charter’s entry into force, subject to renewal by the Chairman. The three-year membership term shall not apply to Member States that contribute more than USD 1,000,000,000 in cash funds to the Board of Peace within the first year of the Charter’s entry into force.’
The commencement of a term of three years begins with effect from the time of entry into force of the Charter. This time of entry into force should not be confused with the time of accession of new members. In this regard, three-year tenure can only begin as from the time of accession and not as from the time of entry into force of the Charter. What should be noted here is that the Charter can only be applicable to Members that might have submitted their instruments of ratification to the BoP Chairman, Donald Trump, the acceptance of which is also a function of his whims and caprices.
On the issue of the BoP possibly replacing the United Nations, the BoP cannot capably replace the United Nations but can serve as an effective rival of the UN. The effective rivalry can wake up the UN from its slumber. The logical rationales behind the establishment of the BoP clearly point to an intention to replace the UN. As noted in the BoP Charter, ‘durable peace requires pragmatic judgment, common sense solutions, and the courage to depart from approaches and institutions that have too often failed.’
In other words, the Charter is simply indicting the UN of non-pragmatic judgment, lack of common sense, and perhaps most disturbingly, UN approaches that ‘have too often failed.’ Donald Trump has frequently criticized the United Nations of ineffectiveness, subjectivity, and partisanship. There was the time the United States accounted for almost 50% of UN budget and voluntary contributions. Currently, the percentage is reduced to about 20%. The reduction is largely explicable by US complaints about the UN and its agencies. It should not be forgotten that the United States once withdrew its membership of the UNESCO and later returned to it. On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order 14155 giving a one-year notice of withdrawal from the World Health Organisation (WHO). Effectively on January 22, 2026 the United States formally withdrew from the organization allegedly for failures in pandemic management and accountability, especially the poor handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the United States stopped funding and engaging with the WHO. The situational reality as of today is that the United States is withdrawing from more than 65 international organisations, including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Green Climate Fund (GCF).
Other reasons for the withdrawal from several organisations were given by the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, as follows: ‘the Trump administration has concluded that these institutions either have duplicate missions, are mismanaged, are unnecessary, costly and ineffective, are influenced by actors who act in the interests and agendas contrary to ours, or are a threat to the sovereignty, freedoms and overall well-being of our country.’ As he further explained it, these institutions ‘no longer serve the interests of the United States.’ Consequently, ‘President Trump is making it clear that it is no longer acceptable to waste the American people’s money on the institutions from which we have withdrawn.’
Without doubt, Marco Rubio’s explanation speaks volumes of implications the epicenter of which is that the various organisations from which the United States is withdrawing are no longer protective of U.S. interests. This is the bottom line. The organisations are no longer under the easy control of the United States. There is no more any need wasting tax payers’ money. The alternative strategic approach is to create another organization that can be subservient to U.S. whims and caprices. This largely explains why the BoP is an American initiative. That is why it is American Donald Trump that is the chairman of the BoP. That is why there is no BoP without Donald Trump.
Without any whiff of doubt, Donald Trump’s strategic calculation is not simply to stop the wastage of American people’s money or seeking to protect the national interests of the United States, but mainly to advance self-interests. The BoP is more or less a special institutional mechanism designed to be an operational platform to ensure and sustain the relevance of Donald Trump in international politics after leaving office. And true enough, Donald Trump will sooner than later leave the White House. What will he be doing in the context of international relations on leaving the White House at the end of his tenure? The BoP appears to have been designed to be a platform for continuity. This is why the scope of mandate has been increased beyond Gaza Strip. This is why Donald Trump is the primus interpares in the Board. That is why he has the casting vote when there is a tie in voting. That is why he wants to mobilise maximum funds within the first year of the 3-year term of membership of the BoP. Most unfortunately, however, President Trump is promoting a MAGA policy of belligerency and at the same time still nursing the idea of being given a Nobel Peace Prize. Nobel Peace cannot be given to proponents of I-tooism or Me-tooism. The BoP agenda should therefore be taken with great caution by African leaders. The BoP does not have the capacity to replace the United Nations. It can only, to an extent, foster Donald Trump’s I-tooism.
Stay ahead with the latest updates!
Join The Podium Media on WhatsApp for real-time news alerts, breaking stories, and exclusive content delivered straight to your phone. Don’t miss a headline — subscribe now!
Chat with Us on WhatsApp
