Since the start of Donald Trump's second term, American foreign policy preferences have demonstrated various signs of drastic change. From the indiscriminate “Liberation Day” tariff war targeting the whole world — allies and adversaries alike — to the crude transactional tendencies manifest in trading military aid for rare earth metals, offering sanction relief in exchange investment and attempts to redefine territorial boundaries through coercion or even threat of force, all point to a major departure from established features and operational patterns of U.S. foreign policy.
To better grasp the essence of these changes, the aforementioned phenomena must be examined from the perspectives of historical thinking, shifts within the United States and the broader international landscape.
These shifts in U.S. foreign policy preferences are neither unprecedented nor inexplicable. One might even call them a “return to history.” American scholar Walter Russell Mead, who systematically analyzed the evolution of U.S. foreign policy since the nation's founding, identified four major schools of thought based on the diplomatic philosophies and practices of four presidents: Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian, Jacksonian and Wilsonian.
The Hamiltonian school, for instance, explicitly advocates economic measures such as tariffs and financial dominance to protect U.S. interests. It emphasizes federal government intervention in commerce. Robert Zoellick, former deputy secretary of state and former president of the World Bank, noted in his recent book that U.S. diplomacy is shaped by five traditions. First, it has “concentrated on North America, its home continent, to determine the country's geography, size, borders, population, nature as a republic, security, economy, and relations with neighbors.”
In this light, Trump's trade and immigration policies and his threats of military action against neighbors are deeply rooted in history. In other words, while the Trump claims a “return of common sense,” the administration's domestic policies feature foreign policy that can largely be characterized as a return of to the past.
The interplay between American domestic and foreign policies seems to suggest that the current shifts in U.S. foreign policy preferences continue reflect the will of the ruling class and serve the interests of those in power. In this complex nation of numerous intertwined and diverse interest groups, politics invariably bears the imprint of these factions, with foreign policy being the outcome of intricate bargaining between sets of domestic stakeholders.
While Trump's tariff wars are framed as “reciprocal” and in the interest of America, they are, in essence, policy favors for select industries and regions. On hot-button domestic issues, such as immigration, border control and drug enforcement, Trump's actions are not merely about safeguarding his claim of national security but also — and crucially — about catering to the demands of his constituents, as consolidating core support remains the central calculus.
In areas such as cryptocurrency and tech regulation, Trump has made major adjustments to his own position, as well as abrupt policy reversals from his predecessor's approach, with even more blatant moves to serve specific sectors or even individuals. An examination of the driving forces behind these foreign policy adjustments reveals a clear pattern of prioritizing national interests over internationalism. Emphasizing tangible gains over rules, norms or alliances is the hallmark of the Trump administration's strategy to preserve America's hegemonic position and advantages.
Shifts in U.S. foreign policy preferences also represent America's novel attempt to navigate and respond to changes in the international situation. In April 2023, Jake Sullivan, Joe Biden's national security adviser, proposed the New Washington Consensus, fundamentally reassessing neoliberalism and advocating greater government intervention in industrial policy to revitalize manufacturing and international economic partnerships centered on national security.
Meanwhile, during his January confirmation hearing for secretary of state, Marco Rubio declared: “The postwar global order is not just obsolete, it is now a weapon being used against us.”
These representative remarks from top figures in both parties reflect a shared view among the elite about the need to adapt to shifting global dynamics. Despite their divergent policy leanings, both sides recognize that America must carve out new strategic paths or risk being unable to sustain its hegemony. Thus, Washington's global strategy — from its geopolitical priorities and alliance structures to the deployment of policy tools and diplomatic style — will continue evolving in the coming years.
How effective will American policy adjustments be in identifying and navigating changes and sustaining hegemony? The outcome remains highly uncertain. The Trump administration's disregard for the interests of allies and partners, its obsession with transactional bargaining and the unpredictability of its policy shifts have dramatically increased global suspicion.
Multiple polls indicate that public approval of the U.S. has plummeted to historical lows in numerous countries, including allied nations. America now faces not only a profound domestic governance crisis but also a deepening international credibility crisis. The compounding effect of these internal and external crises has not only negated short-term gains (such as those derived from tariffs) but is also increasingly undermining policy cohesion between domestic and foreign fronts, particularly in immigration, the visa system and regulation of technology. This erosion steadily eats away the foundation of America's long-term strength and global influence.
