The article analyses the key points of the emerging economic strategy of the D. Trump administration. The authors believe that the most provocative U.S. initiatives for reforming the American foreign economic relations (radicalization of the trade policy, “rebalancing” foreign trade in favor of the United States, and especially isolationism as opposed to globalization) may harm the international trading system. In his own country, Trump’s reforms are meeting unprecedented political opposition, led by both democrats and neo-conservatives. So, Trump’ abilities to transform the American economy now are less evident than those of R. Reagan or even B. Obama. In any case, the process of reforming international economic system, initiated by President Trump will most likely continue after expiration of the term of his administration. Some of his ideas meet cool reception even among the closest U.S. trade partners. The emerging new economic actors (China, India, Brazil and others) generally support the idea of modernization of the world trade rules and regulations, but their expectations not necessary correlate with those of Mr. Trump. Fortunately, many Trump`s practical actions, in contrast to some of his pre- and post-election public statements, contain few immediate threats that might trigger an open trade war. There is a chance that we shall see a sort of more close U.S.-China partnership in the near future, though it does not exclude the possibility of aggravated conflicts in some areas (cyber-security, intellectual property, technology transfer and so on). The relations with Russia are not in the forefront of Trump`s economic policy. Nevertheless, we believe that the success of Trump’s reforms will make the USA more interested in increasing exports to Russia and may even open possibilities for closer economic cooperation. Some of his administration’s radical initiatives, such as orientation on national priorities, protection of domestic manufacturers, and preference in some cases of bilateral cooperation instead of multilateral may prove to be worth a special study. Trump’s critics of the international economic organizations and even COP2 also have certain objective reasons. Russia may only gain from transition to priority of domestic market and some additional protectionism, which at the same time should not be harmful for its imports of innovative machinery and technologies. 
Read full abstract