Donald Trump Has Dumped ‘America First’

Key Points and Summary – President Trump’s second term has been a profound disappointment for “America First” advocates, as he has abandoned his non-interventionist promises for a recklessly aggressive foreign policy.

-According to the author, Trump’s actions—from bombing Iran to escalating the proxy war against Russia—mirror the “foreign follies” of his predecessors, whom he once criticized.

-This shift is not a coherent strategy but a dangerous and idiosyncratic approach that is alienating allies, pushing Russia and China closer together, and increasing the risk of major, unnecessary wars, ultimately betraying the voters who elected him.

A Nightmare for ‘America First’: Trump’s Second Term is a ‘Betrayal’

President Joe Biden never claimed to be a peacenik. He underwrote Israel’s aggressive war-making against its Palestinian subjects and Mideast neighbors alike, launched an increasingly dangerous proxy war against Russia, continued to underwrite Saudi military operations in Yemen, and threatened China with war over Taiwan.

In contrast, Donald Trump claimed to be the peace candidate in both the 2016 and 2020 elections. Yet that image was always deceptive. He criticized George W. Bush’s disastrous war against Iraq but had endorsed initially the invasion. His best moment was negotiating a withdrawal agreement from Afghanistan, though he left its implementation to his incompetent successor. Also laudable was his abortive outreach to North Korea’s Kim Jong-un.

Trump avoided starting any new conflicts during his first administration, but his aggressive policies courted war, especially in the Middle East. He reinforced, even expanded, Israel’s near absolute impunity. Moreover, his assassination of Iran’s Qasem Soleimani risked corresponding retaliation by Tehran, though luckily the clerical regime held back. Trump continued the Obama administration policy of supporting the brutal Saudi royal family in its mass killing of Yemeni civilians. At least then Americans did not actually pull the trigger.

Worse, Trump began providing Kyiv with lethal military aid, which effectively brought NATO into Ukraine rather than Ukraine into NATO, resulting in catastrophic consequences. Moreover, though he refused to commit to Taiwan, he was surrounded by Sinohawks and adopted a more contentious naval policy in East Asian waters. And his unnaturally belligerent nature sometimes seeped out in unexpected ways, as when he proposed war against Venezuela.

Unfortunately, he appears to have decisively shifted toward a largely unrestrained, if somewhat idiosyncratic, foreign policy. Even more than Biden, Trump has fueled Israel’s brutal, often aggressive wars, and bizarrely pressed for an American takeover of Gaza. He fought a desultory and brief, but still expensive, war against Yemen’s Ansar Allah, or Houthis, on behalf of Israel and Europe, which accounted for the bulk of threatened shipping. He used negotiations with Iran as a cover for Israeli and then US military strikes, increasing Tehran’s incentive to build a bomb. His expectation that Iran’s government would swiftly surrender to its betrayer after the bombs stopped falling proved wildly unrealistic, so now he is threatening to bomb Iran again.

Even more dramatically, frustrated by Russia’s predictable refusal to let him dictate a ceasefire—which without a final settlement favors Ukraine, providing the latter with a desperately needed respite from combat—Trump is revving up the US proxy war against Moscow. Backed by the Beltway War Party, he has promised a major military resupply effort for Ukraine, including “offensive” weapons. He seemed to suggest support for bombing Russian cities, stating that Ukraine should make Russians “feel the pain,” though he later excluded missiles capable of hitting Moscow from his aid package. For now, anyway. Moreover, the Europeans are promising to provide such weapons.

When NATO’s European members promised to increase their military outlays, Trump endorsed the alliance and continued US defense support for the continent, exulting that “nobody thought” getting European agreement to spend five percent on the military “was possible.” Alas, the bulk of those increases will occur only after Trump leaves office, if ever. NATO members are likely to wait for the election of his successor, and then revisit the five percent standard. He also threatened to toughen economic sanctions against Moscow and intensify his trade war against China and India, most importantly, if they continued to purchase Russian oil. This would guarantee an economic confrontation the US is unlikely to win, wrecking any trade agreement with Beijing while turning New Delhi hostile.

His understanding and judgment look particularly ragged after he claimed to have threatened to “bomb the sh*t out of Moscow” to deter Putin during his first term. No doubt, Russia would have retaliated, triggering a potential nuclear cataclysm. If he truly were willing to risk a hot war with a nuclear power over minimal US interests, his suicidal judgment would warrant his removal from office. However, anything short of full-scale conflict is unlikely to change Russian policy—even abundant aid will only have a limited tactical impact, while encouraging Moscow to increase its assistance to Washington’s adversaries, particularly North Korea.

Trump’s quixotic determination to impose his preferences on other nations was reflected by his decision to choose war over diplomacy against Iran, after adopting Israel’s demands as his own. He has perversely militarized his relations with democratic allies and neighbors, for instance, refusing to forswear military action to acquire Greenland and retake the Panama Canal.

He also proposed US intervention in Mexico, a country that lost half its territory to 19th-century American expansionism and retains a neuralgic reaction to Washington’s attempted interference in domestic affairs. The country’s reputation has suffered accordingly: Denmark, which oversees Greenland, even met with other European members of NATO to discuss how best to respond to its threats.

Absent a change in direction, Trump could find himself fighting more wars than Biden or Obama, and potentially much more serious wars. The proxy fight against Russia is now Trump’s conflict. The risk of full-scale war with Moscow has also increased, and that with Iran is significantly greater than before. Unless Trump discovers a more pacific nature, similar recklessness toward Beijing could prove even more dangerous.

Although Trump recently passed his six-month mark in office, he still has time to reverse course. However, the longer he treats the Māori Haka as America’s national dance, the harder it will be for him to back down. His policies are increasing pressure for future US interference and intervention, with the consequent enhanced risk of international conflict and potential for national catastrophe.

For instance, reflexive support for Benjamin Netanyahu’s Greater Israel policy ensures increased internal repression and political instability in that nation. Having provided irrefutable proof that Tehran cannot trust Washington, and especially his administration, Trump has made it less likely that Iran will abandon its potential to develop nuclear weapons. A more intense and lengthier Russo-Ukraine war ensures that Moscow will continue to undermine US interests in Asia and the Middle East, as well as Europe. Already, South Korea and Japan are nervous about how Russia has enabled Pyongyang to rejuvenate its military forces.

Worst of all would be a war between the US and China over Taiwan. Fighting thousands of miles from home and relying on uncertain, even unlikely allies, Washington could easily lose. Never have two major conventional powers battled each other while possessing nuclear weapons. That growing possibility is likely to make US-China relations more confrontational and explosive. So far, Trump has appeared to downplay the likelihood of American intervention, while formally retaining Washington’s policy of “strategic ambiguity,” saying that he would “never comment” on the issue. However, his stated willingness to flip from mediator to assailant regarding Russia suggests the possibility of a similar transformation toward Beijing.

Instead of focusing on the disputed Epstein client list, Trump’s core supporters should challenge him for abandoning America First. Why is he putting other nations, most obviously Israel and Ukraine, before US interests?

And where will he stop?

Indeed, will he stop before plunging the country into another unnecessary war?

Americans are not isolationists in any meaningful sense of the word. However, they have grown tired of leaders who forget who they were elected to represent. Donald Trump was chosen to challenge the failed conventional wisdom. Unfortunately, on foreign policy, he is increasingly embracing it. Rather like the ending of George Orwell’s famous novel Animal Farm, the revolutionary Trump looks increasingly like the old guard Biden whom he displaced.

Trump risks using his second term to cement Joe Biden’s legacy.

About the Author: Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow, CATO Institute

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, specializing in foreign policy and civil liberties. He worked as special assistant to President Ronald Reagan and editor of the political magazine Inquiry. He writes regularly for leading publications such as Fortune magazine, National Interest, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Times. Bandow is National Security Journal Contributing Editor.