U.S. foreign policy is adrift between the old order and one that has yet to be defined. Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 U.S. presidential election awakened many in Washington to the reality that despite the political elite’s presumption of an unassailable foreign policy consensus, many Americans questioned the assumptions that had guided decades of the U.S. approach to the world—in particular, the idea that an international order backed by American military hegemony was self-evidently worth maintaining, no matter the cost. The 2024 election has confirmed that 2016 was not an anomaly. The old Washington consensus is dead.
But Trump’s “America first” approach is not a viable alternative. Despite often being mislabeled as isolationism, what Trump offers is in fact aggressive unilateralism, or what the political scientist Barry Posen has termed “illiberal hegemony”: a vision of the United States unbound by rules and unashamedly self-interested, no longer getting ripped off by a self-dealing and entrenched Washington political establishment and free-riding international allies and clients. In his speech to the Republican convention, Vice President-elect JD Vance built on this theme, weaving his own personal story of disillusionment with the Iraq war, in which he served, into a broader narrative of elite failure and impunity. Democrats neglected to respond adequately (even bafflingly touting the endorsement of one of the Iraq war’s key architects, former Vice President Dick Cheney), leaving a lane wide open for Trump to present himself, however cynically, as the antiwar candidate.
Americans need an alternative to the choice between “America first” unilateralism or “America is back” nostalgia. Putting a new coat of paint on the old liberal internationalism will not do—neither for Americans nor for most of the world’s countries and peoples, who understandably see U.S. leaders’ appeals to a “rules-based” order as a thin varnish for an order ruled, and often bent or broken, by the United States and its friends. Progressives and Democrats now have an opportunity—and obligation—to map a better way forward.
The goal of any country’s foreign policy is to promote the security and prosperity of its people. In today’s deeply interconnected world, however, where key challenges such as climate change and pandemics are shared, the United States’ global approach needs to include another priority: the common good. This will require a United States that acts in solidarity with others, considers the effects of American foreign policy on people around the world, and seeks to promote U.S. security and prosperity while not exporting insecurity and economic precarity onto them. Such an approach will benefit Americans more as well.
A DECISIVE BREAK
Although there is now a greater recognition that Washington needs to break away from failed approaches of the past, much of the foreign policy establishment remains committed to American global military hegemony, whatever the cost. To paraphrase the musician Rick James, primacy is a hell of a drug. Yet it’s a habit that must be kicked, as feeding it necessitates a struggle for dominance that both neglects the urgent domestic needs and infringes upon the liberties of Americans. Simply put, building a healthy and secure democracy is incompatible with an endless quest for global dominance.
Even though the United States’ relative share of power is declining, it still boasts the largest economy and military in the world, with an unmatched set of alliances and partnerships and relationships
What are the potential unintended consequences of an “America First” approach to foreign policy, particularly regarding stability and the development of international alliances?
## The Death of the Old Order: Finding a New Path for U.S. Foreign Policy
**Host:** Joining us today is Dr. Alex Reed, a leading expert on international relations and U.S. foreign policy.
Dr. Alex Reed, recent elections have shown a clear rejection of the old Washington consensus on foreign policy. What does this mean for the future of U.S. involvement in the world?
**Dr. Alex Reed:** Thanks for having me. You’re right, the 2016 and 2024 elections signaled a deep dissatisfaction with the traditional approach to U.S. foreign policy, an approach many perceived as being solely focused on maintaining American military dominance, regardless of the costs. This consensus, built on a foundation of liberal internationalism, is undeniably crumbling. As the RAND Corporation notes in their report, “Understanding the Current International Order”, there’s a growing perception that this order is at risk and many Americans are questioning its value. [[1](https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1500/RR1598/RAND_RR1598.pdf)]
**Host:** But if the old order is failing, what are the alternatives? We seem stuck between Donald Trump’s “America First” approach and a nostalgic return to the past.
**Dr. Alex Reed:** You’ve hit upon the central dilemma. Trump’s approach, despite being labeled as isolationist, is actually a form of aggressive unilateralism. It’s a vision of the U.S. acting solely in its own self-interest, unbound by international rules and alliances. This is not a sustainable path forward, as it risks alienating allies and creating global instability. On the other hand, simply trying to revive the old order won’t work either. The world has changed, and Americans are demanding a different approach.
**Host:** So what’s the solution?
**Dr. Alex Reed:** We need a fresh vision for U.S. foreign policy, one that balances American interests with global cooperation.
It requires moving beyond the binary choice between “America First” and “America is back” nostalgia. We need to build new partnerships, engage in diplomacy, and focus on addressing global challenges like climate change and pandemics. This will require a shift in mindset and a willingness to work with others, even when we disagree. It won’t be easy, but it’s essential if we want to create a more stable and prosperous world.
**Host:** A fascinating perspective. Thank you for sharing your insights, Dr. Alex Reed.
