Until now I’ve abstained from commenting on Trump because he’s stubbornly fetishized by the political media. Similar to blathering about the royal family or the Kardashians, it always felt better to let others explore any trump-related enquiries. But now I reluctantly enter the fray to posit that Trump, for better or worse, is responsible for the eventual collapse of global US hegemony.

Trump’s political rise and subsequent influence over America’s Republican party is causing a titanic shift in US foreign policy circles. The Trump-dominated Republican party increasingly advocates for nationalist and populist policies and their anti-establishment foreign policy posture is proudly pragmatically isolationist. Partly due to past failures of interventionism, this perspective has a wide appeal to voters, morally and politically. The inevitable result is that isolationism will eventually become the strategic norm in US foreign policy circles, brought about by Trump Republicans.

Trump’s isolationism gained traction partly because his image of defending the interests of blue-collared Americans does not demand an in-depth scholarly approach to foreign affairs. His populist messaging labels interventionist politicians like Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush as elitest and out of touch with the American people. He declares the interventions which they supported abroad demonstrate their neglect of ordinary citizens’ concerns. It’s convenient to criticize the decisions of predecessors if you weren’t around when the decisions were being made.

To this point, Republicans of 2024 are not Republicans of 2016 or of 1980, and the distinction between the previous generations’ party and today could not be clearer. In conservative lore Ronald Reagan is often celebrated for his resounding declaration, ‘Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!’, while Trump’s legacy might be defined by his endeavors to construct one. Trump’s effusive protectionism is apparent in his motto of America First- that for too long, America has been exploited by foreign countries in trade deals and military alliances. Trump started a trade war with China while alleging their unfair trade practices and theft of US intellectual property. He knocks NATO alliance members for not fulfilling spending commitments, saying recently, “if they’re not going to pay, we’re not going to protect.” Trump’s underlying belief grounding these positions is a deliberate disregard for other countries’ concerns in favor of advancing his vision of America’s interests.

This deliberate disregard for other countries’ prospects is most evident in Trump’s language on the Russia-Ukraine War, often claiming that he would “end the war within 24 hours.” The implicit understanding is that despite Ukraine not achieving its desired outcome, this approach remains ideal because U.S. interests necessitate resolving the conflict. The virtues of a rules-based international order and protecting national sovereignty pale in comparison to advancing America’s strategic goals. Of course, there are those who oppose Trump’s vision and believe that US interests are directly tied to Ukraine defending itself against Russia’s invasion. But the resilient popularity of Trump’s stance has led to an ongoing debate about the strategic goals of US foreign policy.

The current debate in America over funding Ukraine is characterized by two factions: the establishment interventionists versus the anti-establishment isolationists. The spectrum of these positions ranges from absolutists to pragmatists. On a military level, interventionists believe in the mantra of ‘peace through strength,’ where exercising a large military presence in international affairs is a precondition for international security and promoting US values. The absolutist interventionist believes promoting US values abroad is a vital strategic interest for America, necessitating not only military coercion but also diplomatic and economic measures. In contrast, the isolationist perspective, when viewed pragmatically, maintains a procedural ambivalence towards foreign affairs. In absolutist framing, the isolationist is one who neglects any matter not directly affecting their own country. Absolute isolationism and absolute interventionism are the endpoints of macro foreign policy perspectives, and both serve as ideological principles driving the discourse on policy formulation.

Regardless of its interpretation, isolationism has a moral and political appeal which is increasingly attractive to both ends of the US political spectrum. The political appeal is simple: why should we spend money on countries abroad when we have problems at home? Conservatives may emphasize the border while progressives focus on healthcare, but neither isolationist perspective prioritizes foreign military expenditures. A growing consensus contends that American quality of life is declining, and that the government has consistently misspent taxpayer dollars. Public opinion is also split over when and why military interventionism is justified. Overall, there is a clear segment of the population which supports the argument that financing foreign military endeavors does not improve the lives of American citizens.

The moral appeal of isolationism holds as much, if not more, importance than the political aspect in swaying public opinion. The core principle is that America does not have a responsibility to enforce the international order and act as the arbiter of right and wrong. And in anointing ourselves the global arbitrator, we do so within the prism of our strategic interests, so we are never as unbiased as we claim to be. Moreover, we only uphold our supposed values abroad –freedom, equality and democratization- when it’s convenient. The critique is that a foreign policy based on values cannot selectively apply those values. The dissonance between America’s actions and its rhetoric has produced the hypocrisy label America faces today.

Political and moral strengths of isolationism become apparent when compared to past failures of interventionism. Supporting nation-building and regime changes are not viewed with the rose-tinted glasses they once had. The US war on terror across the Middle East is now widely viewed as a mistake. Brown University’s Costs of War project reported that “20 years of post-9/11 wars have cost the U.S. an estimated $8 trillion and have killed more than 900,000 people.” Costly and futile endeavors to democratize unwilling places confirm the notion that American values cannot simply be imposed on a populace. Critics will say that interventionism, even when done in good faith, rarely brings about the result it desires. Isolationism reframes the question from ‘What should we do?’ to ‘Why should we care?’. There exists a frightening simplicity to the belief that the problems of others are not ours to solve, and besides, any attempt at addressal will result in failure anyway.

Trump combined previous interventionist failures with the allure of isolationism to supplant the foreign party establishment in favor of his pragmatic isolationism. Interventionist proponents like Joe Biden or Mitt Romney will claim that defeating Trump in 2024 can stave off an isolationist transformation in US foreign policy circles. But this argument mistakes the effect for the cause- in their vision, Trump is the head of an isolationist snake which, if severed at the head, will fragment. A better analogy is Trump serving as the final ingredient in a fertilizer which cultivated a multitude of isolationist sentiments, each of which persists independently of Trump’s success.

There are many who argue that Trump’s foreign policy lacks an ideological foundation and that his actions are solely driven by self-interest. Regardless, it’s crucial to recognize that any possible unintended consequences of Trump’s policies do not absolve him of responsibility. The ascent of Trump all but guaranteed the marginalizing of the current US foreign policy establishment. While traditional interventionist foreign policy will still exist, it will no longer effectively be running the show. Like most historic empires, the US will turn inwards and leave a vacuum of leadership on the global stage. Each country, and especially benefactors of US security guarantees, must recalibrate their strategic approach in the newly multi-polar world.

Works Cited

1. “Costs of the 20-Year War on Terror: $8 Trillion and 900,000 Deaths.” Brown University, 1 Sept. 2021, www.brown.edu/news/2021-09-01/costsofwar.
2. Doherty, Carroll, and Jocelyn Kiley. “A Look Back at How Fear and False Beliefs Bolstered U.S. Public Support for War in Iraq.” Pew Research Center – U.S. Politics & Policy, Pew Research Center, 14 Mar. 2023, www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/03/14/a-look- back-at-how-fear-and-false-beliefs-bolstered-u-s-public-support-for-war-in-iraq/.
3. Kinnard, Meg, and Michelle L. Price. “Donald Trump Stands by Remarks about Not Defending NATO Members after Backlash.” AP News, AP News, 15 Feb. 2024, apnews.com/article/trump-backlash-nato-funding-russia-ukraine- 796f245e06d1a0f314e3b4bfdb793cc0.
4. Orth, Taylor, and Carl Bialik. “Which U.S. Military Interventions Do Americans Think Have Been Successful?” YouGov, 19 Dec. 2023, today.yougov.com/politics/articles/48215-us-military-interventions-successful-justified- poll.
5. “Trump Says He Could End the Ukraine War in 24 Hours If He Were President.” YouTube, The Times and The Sunday Times, 4 May 2023, www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fEbGppH86M.