Latest stories

Xi's big chance to take the yuan fully global in 2026

India eyes Russia S-400 deal despite US sanctions threat Trump's energy power play imperils Russia-Turkey ties

The administration's approach to Ukraine presents another puzzle. Trump initially floated peace plans that would have required Ukrainian territorial concessions to Russia-hardly surprising from someone skeptical of NATO expansion and eager to deal with Putin.

But European allies, prodded by American pressure on defense spending, have actually increased their support for Ukraine under Trump's watch. Whether this represents strategic success or strategic confusion depends largely on which Trump advisor you ask on any given day.

The tariff trap

Perhaps nowhere is the gap between“America First” rhetoric and reality more evident than in Trump's trade policy. The president has launched what amounts to a global trade war, imposing tariffs not just on rivals like China but on allies like Canada, Mexico and the European Union.

The logic is straightforward enough: America has been taken advantage of through unfair trade deals, and tariffs will bring manufacturing jobs home while forcing better terms from trading partners.

The reality is more complicated. Tariffs raise costs for American consumers and businesses, disrupt supply chains that American companies depend on, and invite retaliation that hurts US exporters. They may protect certain industries but undermine overall economic efficiency.

More fundamentally, Trump's trade war undercuts his own security strategy. You cannot simultaneously demand that allies like Germany, Japan, and South Korea spend more on defense while imposing tariffs that damage their economies and reduce their capacity to do so.

You cannot build a coalition to counter China while punishing your coalition partners economically.

The coherence problem

What we're witnessing isn't so much a doctrine as an improvization-foreign policy driven by Trump's instincts, personal relationships, and domestic political calculations rather than a consistent strategic framework. This produces bizarre contradictions:

• Threatening NATO allies while increasing US troop deployments in Europe
• Pursuing“peace through strength” while alienating the allies that amplify American power
• Demanding burden-sharing while undermining the economic foundations that make burden-sharing possible
• Promising to avoid foreign entanglements while maintaining a massive global military footprint
• Withdrawing from multilateral institutions that constrain American action while complaining about America bearing unfair burdens

The administration's defenders argue that Trump's unpredictability is itself a strategic asset-that keeping adversaries off-balance serves American interests. But unpredictability that confuses allies as much as adversaries isn't strategy; it's just unpredictability.

What“America First” Should Mean

Genuine realism in American foreign policy would start from clear premises about national interests.

First, maintain the economic prosperity and physical security of the American homeland. This requires defending against actual threats, not inflating every regional conflict into an existential challenge.

Second, preserve access to critical global commons-sea lanes, trade routes, and markets that American prosperity depends on. This doesn't require dominating every region or resolving every conflict.

Third, prevent the emergence of a peer competitor that could threaten American interests across multiple domains. This suggests focusing resources on the most serious challenge-China-rather than dissipating them everywhere.

Fourth, maintain a network of capable allies who share interests in stability and open commerce. This means treating alliances as strategic investments, not protection rackets.

A true“America First” policy would prioritize these core interests, husband resources for genuine challenges, and avoid unnecessary conflicts. It would distinguish between vital and peripheral interests. It would recognize that American power, while substantial, is not unlimited and that overextension is a greater danger than retreat.

The missing strategy

What Trump offers instead is a foreign policy that's simultaneously more activist and less strategic than advertised. He hasn't brought troops home from the Middle East; he's redeployed them based on current circumstances.

He hasn't reduced America's global military commitments; he's just complained more loudly about their costs while maintaining them. He hasn't crafted a coherent strategy for dealing with China; he's imposed tariffs while sending mixed signals on everything else.

The president clearly enjoys the exercise of American power-the ability to impose sanctions, threaten tariffs, broker deals, and command attention. What's less clear is whether he understands where that power comes from: not just from military budgets and GDP figures, but from the network of alliances, the credibility of American commitments, the strength of American institutions and the appeal of American leadership.

You cannot maintain power by wielding it recklessly. You cannot strengthen alliances by treating them as transactional arrangements. You cannot make America great by tearing down the international system America built-at least not without something better to replace it with.

Conclusion: branding vs reality

So is Trump pursuing an“America First” foreign policy? The honest answer is: sometimes, partially and inconsistently.

When he questions the value of defending distant territories of marginal strategic importance, he's asking legitimate questions that foreign policy establishments have avoided.