America First in Practice

Rather than abandoning America First for foreign interests, President Trump has intensified this doctrine in his second term, but critics argue this approach paradoxically weakens American global leadership and creates opportunities for adversaries to reshape the international order.

The America First Doctrine Reinforced

Since returning to office in January 2025, President Trump has issued explicit directives mandating that "the foreign policy of the United States shall champion core American interests and always put America and American citizens first," with the State Department required to align all policies with an America First approach. This represents not a retreat from the doctrine, but rather its bureaucratic entrenchment across government agencies.

The administration's actions demonstrate unwavering commitment to this philosophy. Trump has redirected nearly $2 billion in foreign aid toward priorities that advance his "America First" agenda, including investments in mineral-rich Greenland and efforts to counter "Marxist, anti-American regimes" in Latin America. The administration has significantly scaled back U.S. involvement with the United Nations, withdrawing from key bodies including the Human Rights Council and halting funding to UNRWA.

The Transactional Approach to Global Engagement

Trump's foreign policy operates on what experts describe as a transactional, realist framework. National security officials have characterized the administration's worldview as seeing the globe "not as a 'global community' but an arena where nations, nongovernmental actors and businesses engage and compete for advantage". This approach treats international relationships as business deals where mutual benefit must be clearly demonstrated.

The administration has applied this lens consistently. Trump imposed a 104% tariff on Chinese imports in 2025 and threatened additional tariffs on countries imposing digital services taxes, viewing trade relationships through the prism of American economic advantage rather than broader strategic partnerships.

Critics: America First as Strategic Self-Sabotage

Foreign policy analysts argue that America First, while rhetorically appealing, actually undermines core American interests by weakening the foundations of U.S. global leadership. The Center for American Progress concludes that in just 100 days, "the Trump administration has turned its back on U.S. allies and undermined national security functions, all while increasing the risk of conflict, intervention, and nuclear escalation".

The critique centers on several key concerns:

Alliance Degradation: NATO allies worry about U.S. unpredictability and transactionalism, fearing it will undermine trust and restrain collective defense capabilities. Traditional partners report feeling as though "your spouse, waking up on your 50th wedding anniversary, suddenly announces that he's ready to talk about whether you have enough in common to start dating".

Power Vacuum Creation: Foreign policy experts warn that "Trump's effort to limit U.S. entanglements abroad could lead to U.S. underreach, leaving dangerous vacuums of power". When America withdraws from international institutions and agreements, adversaries like China and Russia gain opportunities to reshape global governance structures to their advantage.

Economic Self-Harm: Economists argue that if Trump implements the high tariff walls he envisions, "he could well spark a trade war that wreaks havoc on international trade and global prosperity" while hurting American working families through higher consumer prices.

Public Opinion: Mixed Reception

American public opinion on Trump's America First policies shows significant division. A Pew Research Center survey found that many early foreign policy actions receive mixed or negative reviews, with more Americans disapproving than approving of ending USAID programs and withdrawing from international agreements. Notably, 43% of Americans believe Trump is "favoring Russia too much" in his handling of the Ukraine conflict.

Regarding Trump's proposed territorial expansions, Americans oppose rather than favor the U.S. taking over territories like Greenland or Gaza by more than a two-to-one margin. Even on tariffs, traditionally popular with Trump's base, Americans are about five times as likely to say increased tariffs on China will be bad for them personally than beneficial.

The Doctrine's Internal Contradictions

Perhaps the most significant criticism of America First is that it has evolved beyond its original non-interventionist promises. Political observers note that Trump "has personally stepped in to de-escalate tensions between Israel and Hamas, Syria, and Iran" and "helped broker cease-fires between India and Pakistan, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Armenia and Azerbaijan", actions that seemingly contradict the doctrine's isolationist rhetoric.

This has led some analysts to conclude that "America First is not so much a foreign policy doctrine as it is a rhetorical relic, one that Trump has discarded when it no longer suited his ambitions". The president's active involvement in global conflicts appears motivated more by personal desires for diplomatic achievements than by consistent adherence to America First principles.

Competing Strategic Visions

The debate over America First reflects deeper disagreements about America's role in the world. Supporters argue it represents a necessary correction to decades of costly overreach, protecting American sovereignty and prioritizing domestic needs. Proponents contend that "America is best positioned to lead in the world and preserve peace and stability when it places the safety, prosperity, and overall well-being of the American people first".

Critics counter that this approach misunderstands how American power actually works. They argue that "American leaders have recognized that global problems require cooperation and mechanisms to resolve differences in ways that avoid costly wars and economic destruction", and that abandoning this multilateral approach ultimately weakens rather than strengthens America's position.

The Global Response

International reactions to America First policies have been largely negative among traditional allies, while adversaries appear to benefit from reduced American engagement. Foreign policy experts describe the first 100 days as comprising "at least 20 years of foreign-policy change" characterized primarily by "chaos".

European allies have expressed particular concern about American reliability, while foreign leaders have become "eager to flock to the White House" knowing that "Trump is now putting himself at the center of the world stage" rather than consistently applying America First principles.

America First in Tension with American Leadership

The evidence suggests that rather than abandoning America First for foreign interests, Trump has doubled down on this approach while simultaneously contradicting it through extensive global engagement. The real tension lies not between America First and foreign interests, but between America First and effective American leadership.

The fundamental challenge, as foreign policy experts note, is that "Trump's America First strategy" could "break the U.S. government rather than reform it. A broken federal government will be in no shape to fix a broken America or a broken world".

The outcome of this experiment in nationalist foreign policy will likely determine not only America's global role but also the broader structure of international order for decades to come. Whether America First ultimately strengthens or weakens American power remains the defining foreign policy question of the Trump era.