Articles
A reading of the prospects for American-Egyptian relations: The Balance of interests under Trump’s Foreign Policy
No Comments
Prepared by: Israa Adel
Assistant Researcher in the International Affairs Unit
US-Egyptian relations are a constant pillar of regional stability and international politics, serving as a model for a long-term strategic partnership based on intertwined interests and accumulated understandings. Despite the change in administrations in Washington and the change in American foreign policy priorities, the relationship with Egypt remains governed by a system of strategic constants that have not been greatly affected by the factors of change. Egypt has established itself as a reliable ally of the United States thanks to its vital geopolitical position and effective role in regional security and counterterrorism issues, in addition to its commitment to peace and stability agreements in the region.
In light of the complexity of the international scene and the increasing competition between the major powers, the importance of the relationship between Cairo and Washington emerges as a pillar of regional balance, based on mutual interests that make Egypt an indispensable partner in American strategic calculations, regardless of the nature of the ruling administration in the White House or emergency international contexts. Hence the main question arises: To what extent do the strategic constants between the United States and Egypt constitute a guarantee for the continuation of relations between the two sides in light of the rapid international transformations and changing American foreign policy priorities?
First: The governing determinants of American – Egyptian relations
Relations between the United States and Egypt are based on a set of strategic, political, and economic determinants that have shaped the paths of interaction between the two countries over decades. Despite the differences in administrations in Washington and their different priorities, these relations remain based on fixed foundations governed by mutual interests and precise geopolitical calculations, forming the basic structure of the partnership between the two parties. The most prominent of these determinants can be identified as follows:
Cooperation in combating terrorism: Security and military cooperation in confronting terrorism is one of the most prominent pillars of American – Egyptian relations, as Washington views Cairo as a reliable partner in confronting extremist terrorist organizations, given its vital geographical location and its sprawling borders with hotbeds of tension in the Middle East and North Africa. This cooperation has been strengthened since 2013, with Egypt adopting a strict security policy towards these organizations, especially in North Sinai. In this context, the United States provided technical and logistical support to the Egyptian forces, which included exchanging intelligence information and modernizing the capabilities of the Egyptian army, in addition to joint cooperation in securing the borders, in a way that serves the interests of both parties in enhancing regional stability and confronting cross-border threats.[1]
Energy and shipping lanes: Egypt represents an important focal point in Washington’s calculations related to energy security and global trade, thanks to its strategic location and control over the Suez Canal, which is considered one of the most important international shipping lanes. Egypt’s importance has increased in this context as it has become a regional center for gas liquefaction and export, especially in light of the recurring tensions witnessed in the Middle East region, which constitutes a fundamental incentive for the United States to enhance cooperation with Cairo to ensure stable energy flows and secure vital navigation lines.
Economic and commercial interests: Economic interests play an important role in strengthening Egyptian – American relations, as the United States is one of Egypt’s largest trading partners, and American investments cover vital sectors such as energy, infrastructure, technology, and food industries. The Egyptian market is also an attraction point for American companies wishing to expand into Africa and the Middle East, while Egypt benefits from technology transfer, facilitating access to international markets, and technical support and financing programs.
Egypt’s regional role: Egypt has political and historical influence in the region, which makes it a pivotal player in complex regional issues such as the Palestinian issue, the Libyan crisis, and developments in the Red Sea. This role may constitute an important pillar in the United States’ awareness of Egypt’s position, as Washington is keen to keep Egypt within its circle of partners to ensure that these files are managed in a way that serves regional stability and achieves balance with its interests in the region.
International transformations and the balance of power: Egyptian – American relations are affected by the ongoing transformations in the international system, especially with the increasing influence of major international powers such as China and Russia, and the tendency of some countries to diversify their strategic partnerships with them in areas including defense, energy, and the economy. In this context, Washington is keen to maintain its position within the equation of influence in the Middle East, by strengthening its relations with Cairo within the equation of deterring the strategic penetration of competing powers.
Second: The dynamics of American foreign policy and its repercussions on Egypt
US foreign policy during President Donald Trump’s second administration was characterized by a combination of pragmatism and selective handling of international crises, with a clear focus on direct US national interests, particularly in the areas of security, trade, and confronting rival powers such as Russia and China. This vision represented a partial extension of Trump’s approach in his first term, but it came in a more complex international context, imposing new developments on American policy priorities, especially with the escalation of crises in Ukraine, Gaza, and the Red Sea, in addition to the continuation of open files in Libya, Syria, Yemen, and the Ethiopian dam. In light of these changes, Washington has recalibrated its foreign policy tools towards these current crises, which has had direct and indirect repercussions on Egyptian interests. This is as follows:
– The Russo-Ukrainian War: Under the second Trump administration, the United States is adopting a more pragmatic approach to the Russo-–Ukrainian War, based on continuing to provide military and economic support to Ukraine without slipping into direct confrontation with Moscow, while seeking to open negotiating paths through regional mediations. In this context, Washington supported indirect mediation initiatives, the most prominent of which were the meetings sponsored by Saudi Arabia between Russian and Ukrainian delegations, in addition to a direct meeting between Trump and President Zelensky in early 2025, as part of a broader deal that includes cooperation in the field of rare earths in exchange for de-escalation. However, on the ground, no tangible progress has been made on this issue. This failure may reflect a miscalculation of the scale and complexity of the crisis, as well as Trump’s desire to exploit it politically without any real intention of ending it to achieve significant economic interests.
These policies have been reflected in Egypt, as a country that seeks to maintain a delicate balance in its relations with both Washington and Moscow. Over the past years, Washington has exerted pressure on Cairo to reduce its defense cooperation with Russia, especially in the field of armament, as part of an American policy aimed at reducing Russian influence with the traditional partners of the United States. Although the intensity of these pressures has decreased relatively in the second Trump administration, the Egyptian – Russian relations file is still subject to American oversight, especially with regard to military purchases and energy projects.[2]
On the other hand, the American approach supporting regional partners in managing balances provided a diplomatic opportunity for Egypt to participate in mediation paths based on its traditional role as a balanced party in international politics. Accordingly, American policy towards this crisis forced Egypt to carefully reset its strategic balances, to maintain its close relationship with Washington without compromising the partnership with Moscow.
– Protectionist policies towards China: The second Trump administration continued to adopt a confrontational approach towards China based on imposing strict tariffs and tightening restrictions on supply and export chains and investment in the technology and energy sectors. This approach comes within the framework of a broader strategy aimed at reducing American dependence on the Chinese economy and curbing Beijing’s expansionist ambitions commercially and technically.
These policies have had repercussions on Egypt, which finds itself facing a complex balance in light of the intense competition between Washington and Beijing, as Cairo seeks to maintain its partnership with the United States, without weakening its increasing economic and development cooperation with China, especially in infrastructure and energy projects. American pressure on Beijing also contributed to pushing the latter to expand its presence in the countries of the Global South, including Egypt, by enhancing financing and investments as part of the “Belt and Road” initiative, which Washington considers an area that requires careful oversight and balance. Accordingly, these policies have imposed on Egypt a cautious management of its economic relations with both parties, in a way that preserves its position in major Chinese initiatives, without harming its strategic relations with Washington, which remains a major trade and security partner.[3]
– Middle East crises: Despite President Trump’s pledges in his second term to end wars in the Middle East and bring peace to the world, reality has shown the continuation of tensions and the complexity of regional crises, as his administration was characterized by selective dealing and contradictory statements with American interests prevailing over comprehensive solutions. This approach has prolonged these crises rather than resolved them, casting a dark shadow over security and stability in the region as a whole, and over Egyptian interests in particular, given the connection between Egyptian national security and these issues. This is as follows:
The war in Gaza: The US administration continued its unconditional support for Israel, both through direct military support and through silence regarding Israeli practices in Gaza, including military operations described as unprecedented ethnic cleansing. While ignoring Palestinian demands and rejecting any balanced negotiating path.
These policies have had an impact on Egypt, as the American bias towards Israel has further complicated Egyptian mediation efforts, weakened the effectiveness of the Egyptian role in calming the situation, led to an increase in tensions on Egypt’s eastern borders, and increased the political and humanitarian burden on Cairo, which found itself bearing the responsibility of containing the regional explosion without effective international support, and maintaining its strategic partnerships with Washington. In light of this equation, Egypt seeks to maintain channels of communication with Washington as an active party in the settlement file, in a way that guarantees regional stability and Egyptian national security and preserves the vital Egyptian role in the Palestinian file.
The Libyan Crisis: During Trump’s first term, his administration adopted a more conservative policy toward the Libyan crisis, focusing on ensuring regional stability and combating terrorism without taking decisive steps or directly interfering in the internal political conflict.[4] At the beginning of his second term in 2025, it seemed that US policy towards Libya still lacked a clear vision or effective engagement in the path of a political solution, and sometimes tended to turn a blind eye to the increasing regional and international interventions, especially by Turkey and Russia, which paved the way for the complexity of the Libyan scene and the expansion of the circle of actors, which negatively affected the chances of stability. [5]
The absence of an effective American role represented a major challenge for Egypt, which considers Libya a direct security and strategic depth for its national security. Cairo found itself facing greater burdens to control its western borders and prevent the spread of chaos, in light of the growing influence of externally supported armed factions. Cairo was also forced to strengthen its political and military presence on its borders, in the absence of effective American support for Egyptian demands to control foreign interference.
The Syrian Crisis: US policy toward Syria during President Trump’s first term was characterized by a relative withdrawal from the arena, with a clear focus on combating terrorism and avoiding direct engagement with the political settlement process, making the US position wavering and inconclusive. In his second term, his policy towards Syria witnessed a noticeable shift towards what can be called conditional openness, as Trump announced his intention to ease the sanctions imposed on Syria to give it an opportunity to open a new page. This shift came within the framework of gradual external support for the new transitional government led by Ahmed Al-Sharaa, while maintaining restrictions imposed on regime symbols and terrorist entities. In a remarkable move, the US administration issued an executive order at the end of June to lift most economic sanctions, considering that this aims to support reconstruction and enhance stability, in an indication of a gradual return of US interest in the Syrian file, but within narrow and conditional strategic calculations.[6]
This shift in American policies towards the Syrian file has put Cairo before a new strategic reality, as it has the opportunity to cooperate in reconstruction efforts and push towards the stability of the Syrian state. Egypt is trying to exploit this for conditional openness to support its vision of Syrian unity and combating terrorism without this constituting a conflict with its strategic interests and existing security relations with Washington.
The Yemeni crisis: The Trump administration adopted a more escalating policy towards the Yemeni file, focusing on the security dimension and confronting the Houthis. In January 2025, Washington reclassified the Houthi group as a foreign terrorist organization, paving the way for expanded economic and financial sanctions against it. As Houthi attacks on US ships in the Red Sea escalated, the administration launched a massive military campaign in March 2025, targeting hundreds of Houthi military sites in Sanaa, Saada, and Hodeidah. Despite this escalation, the US administration later moved towards containing the situation, announcing in May 2025 a temporary halt to air strikes following an indirect agreement brokered by the Sultanate of Oman, stipulating an end to Houthi attacks on American interests in exchange for an end to American military operations.[7]
Trump’s escalatory policy in Yemen has affected the security of the Red Sea, which is of direct concern to Egypt given its strategic location and control over the Bab al-Mandab Strait through the Suez Canal. US strikes have increased tensions in sea lanes, raising Egyptian concerns about threats to international shipping and trade. Designating the Houthis as a terrorist organization has also created diplomatic embarrassment for Egypt, which seeks to maintain balanced relations with all Yemeni parties as part of its support for a comprehensive political solution to the crisis.
The Iranian file: The Trump administration has followed an escalatory approach towards Tehran, completing the “maximum pressure” policy that it has adopted since its first term, as part of efforts to strangle the Iranian economy and reduce its oil exports to zero, with the aim of forcing Iran to stop its nuclear program and reduce its regional influence. This came through the signing of a presidential memorandum to intensify sanctions, and direct warnings to Tehran that combined calls for new negotiations with implicit threats of the possibility of resorting to the military option. Despite this escalation, Trump was keen to stress that his goal is not war, but rather imposing stricter negotiating conditions that force Tehran to make fundamental concessions on the nuclear file and regional interventions.