The American election and Trump’s admittedly unexpected victory are not going to change the relationship between the U.S. and countries like Algeria, a relationship that is based first and foremost on the Algerian expertise in the fight against terrorism. As proof of this, the previous Washington administrations have always, with some small differences, had the same approach to Algeria, often preferring the neighboring countries, which are more permeable to American requests. The fact also remains that all the presidents who have succeeded one another, including Barack Obama, have, despite campaign promises, quickly conformed to the mold of the U.S. administration and establishment, like very important case managers. As proof of this, the Palestine question is still unresolved, the decolonization of the western Sahara and the referendum that should follow have been dragging on for years. Yet, during these past years, there have been changes in power between the Democrats and the Republicans. So, whether Hillary Clinton or Trump, not much is going to change for the countries that the American administration hasn’t highlighted as a key country for their international policies. As for economic relationships, they come down to commercial operations based on the business as principal and the dollar as currency. The part concerning civil society and human rights will remain, where this country is involved, [the production of] regular reports that strongly denounce violations of human rights and liberties. The state department will still have the same structure for allotting the good points and a secretary to go around the world like the police officer they have always been. It is true that the new tenant of the White House is frightening for two fundamental reasons: On the one hand, he has never occupied an elected position and on the other, his religion remains the dollar leaning toward an egocentricity that comes close to communitarianism. Apart from that, there isn’t much [difference] between them.