Assuming this isn't simply a pro-Trump polemic, I'll respond.
US control of all those bases goes back to WWII and the Bretton Woods accords held towards the end of it. The US administration was convinced that colonial empires were one of the causes of war in Europe. As someone in India, you might be aware of the issues that come with colonialism. So, in the Bretton Woods accords, the US promised to use its navy to protect blue water trade, allowing any nation to trade with any other - not just within colonial constraints, allowed contries devastated by WWII to sell their goods into the US market and so supported rebuilding manufacturing in those countries. There was also the Marshal Plan, which was essentially giving those countries money to rebuild - and letting them figure out on their own how to spend it. Many of those bases all over the planet had been Brittish ones, which the US acquired via Lend-Lease (and then hardball) and used to support US navy ships in order to do that protection thing.
This was all complicated by Stalin's grab for Europe - even before WWII was over in Europe which the US saw as a threat. So NATO (and the Marshal plan) as a counter. It worked for Western Europe, but was too late for Eastern. Once the USSR collapsed, and imprisoned countries could choose their own futures, many of them chose to no longer be part of the Russian Federation. The considered the RF to be an existential threat and pushed to get under NATO's umbrella of protection - the same way Ukraine's been clamoring to become part of NATO.
Back during Stalin's reign, George Kennan (US State Dept) warned in his 'long telegram' that the USSR was essentially the same are the pre-WWI Russian Empire, with the same imperialistic urges. Now that it's the RF, the same imperialistic drive is there - because it's more geographical (large land mass poor agricutural per-area production, no easily-defensible geographic borders forcing them to expand out to those defensible barriers - or die) than anything else, but you could argue that there's something wrong with Russians just based on their behavior in occupied areas and bombing civilians.

As far as the press (and the 'military industrial complex') 'demonizing' Trump, I'd disagree. If anything, they're taking the long strings of words he says - that don't seem to consist of coherent thoughts - and *translate* them into what they think he might have meant. They're been sane-washing him, making him sound like he's not demented in spite of the decline being obvious if you look at any longer video clips.
Without getting into anything more, it's interesting that someone in India would see things this way. There are some parallels between Trump and the Evangelical Christians and Modi and Hinduism, but I don't know enough about India or the BJP to say more than that. But Trump is not Modi.
BTW, the US had been drifting away from the Bretton Woods accords since Reagan (USSR collapse) and NATO was becoming moribund. What brought it back? RF agression. NATO was all about group solidarity to deter Russian aggression, so no surprise there.