An 'America First' that Transcends Trump

Overstretched and underinvested, the U.S. is risking calamity and prosperity

There are few areas that President Trump will leave better than he found them. He has dismantled the federal government’s ability to provide crucial services to those in need. His disregard for legality is clearer now more than ever, as he openly defies the orders of the judicial branch in advancement of his cruel and unusual form of governance. He has defied the principal beliefs of conservatism in favor of an unchecked executive branch that has the power to control everything from city traffic laws to the allocation, or lack thereof, of congressional funds. He has weakened our ability to produce cutting-edge research at our institutions while failing to address the real and clear bureaucratic bloat inhabiting our universities and agencies.

Yet, President Trump is right to pursue an “America First” policy that promotes the lives and needs of Americans first and foremost. While the President’s unpredictable rhetoric is not wholly positive, the ability to at last pierce through the mirage of a “rules-based international order” can bring tremendous prosperity to Americans.

Firstly, the Trump administration has wisely analyzed that the cessation of hostilities in Ukraine is both possible and positive. The administration has followed a set of public and private policies to ensure that the war is ended expeditiously and fairly, much to the derision of major publications in the U.S. and Europe. Secretary Pete Hegseth’s declaration that Ukraine will never be accepted into NATO has been widely derided as giving leverage to Russia in advance of any negotiations. Rather than a strategic blunder, Secretary Hegseth has adroitly “surrendered” a point of negotiation that was in reality never going to reach fruition in the first place in exchange for substantive engagement from Russia. Russian dictator Vladimir Putin is clearly invested in the perceived prestige of the Russian Federation and has made clear that Russia must not be ignored in European security matters. Russia would never agree to a deal that included any semblance of Ukrainian entrance into NATO, nor would the United States and major European powers be willing to enter a direct conflict with Russia. Leverage was not sacrificed but rather secured, allowing the United States to display genuine interest in a fair settlement while not forfeiting key negotiating points.

This is a fact that the Biden administration, as well as the rest of Europe, understood perfectly well. Ukraine’s “unstoppable and irreversible” ascension into NATO during the Biden administration was a cruel, carrotless stick trotted out for the egos of men who see Ukraine’s fate as a blurb in their memoirs. What good is it to have the G7 once again declare that Putin has waged a war of aggression on Ukraine? Who is this for? Such prodding will not change the minds of the Global South, nor of China, and especially not of Putin. Those who see it as aggression and those who do not have already decided their opinion years ago. What these statements do achieve, however, is further animosity between two sides that will have to achieve some level of communication and cooperation.

The United States has remained firm on strategic imperatives that would carry actual sacrifices. President Trump has refused to remove troops from NATO’s eastern border to ensure that Russian aggression does not fall upon allies who invest in their own national security a fraction as much as the United States does. While the U.S. may gradually pull away from Europe to focus strategic infrastructure on Asia, this does not mean that the United States has surrendered Europe to Russia. Additionally, it is Europe that has failed to ready itself for a conflict with Russia absent significant U.S. support. There can be no excuses for Europe’s unpreparedness for the current moment, as President Trump has already been in office before. It is the prerogative of European states to understand that the U.S. is no longer benefiting from this unequal relationship in its current form.

Despite President Trump’s unhelpful tirade against President Zelenskyy, the President is correct that the ceasefire in Ukraine cannot be traded or sacrificed for the political career of Ukraine’s political leadership. President Trump was incorrect when he stated that President Zelenskyy is only sitting at a four percent approval rating, but Zelenskyy has lagged behind opposition candidates in recent polls while sanctioning legitimate political opponents. We must be able to distinguish between legitimate reporting of politically predatory abuses of power and Russian propaganda.

Much has been made of President Trump’s actions as a return to the transactional and “jungle law” politics of the nineteenth century. Critics argue that President Trump will make the world more dangerous and unstable by reducing American commitment to these institutions. In some respects, like the U.S. withdrawing from the World Health Organization, they are correct. However, the idea that the current “rules-based international order” is the only way to achieve productive and sustainable peace ignores how such an order is actually implemented. The idea that the rules-based order has prevented violence across the world is demonstrably false. The Cold War was, in fact, only cold in its lack of conflict between great powers, not in its lack of untold bloodshed in the rest of the world. Both the Soviet Union and the United States engaged in brutal conflicts across the Southern Hemisphere that upended and ended lives.

Even at its most minimal expectation—that of preventing a nuclear war—the rules-based order nearly failed. Nuclear conflict was only narrowly avoided during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Able Archer, and the Korean War, to name a few. The economic globalization spearheaded by the United States during the Cold War has already ingratiated itself into global commerce to the extent that it will certainly outlive the tariff-friendly Trump administration. Peace can, has, and will prevail through the strength of open lanes of communication rather than arbitrary and hypocritical commitments to hollow morality. The idea that powerful states do not already have near-direct control over smaller and less wealthy states is a fallacy. Rather, the rules-based order truly only matters when it’s an adversary of the United States utilizing military coercion to achieve policy goals. Many who bemoan the destruction of this so-called order were the same individuals who gleefully sent our sons into Afghanistan and who feigned regret when they came back in coffins.

Putting America First will mean global, not just regional, policy shifts. While a drawdown in European investment was overdue, the Trump administration continues to risk regional war in the Middle East and Asia. While it is not the job of the United States to prevent these wars with military action, it is also an abdication of diplomacy not to hedge against such disruptive conflict. No ally—whether it be Europe, Israel, or Japan—should expect that the U.S. is morally and forever bound to protect their nation. Alliances should be focused on economic partnership and cooperation, allowing institutional linkage that will lower the risk of uncontrolled escalation.

The future of the global community has already been decided. It is the job of the United States to use its immense power sparingly. We must draw down the bloated defense bureaucracy and publicly and proudly invest those savings into our children’s schools, our neighborhoods’ churches, and our city streets. President Trump has pursued this policy of America First with mixed results, and his volatility and lack of strategy are antithetical to truly putting America first. Yet the basic idea—that foreign involvement has become too powerful while our domestic environment suffers—is true. To compete rather than combat our adversaries, we will need to adjust how America sees the world and how the world sees America.