A free nation must possess the authority to govern itself. American laws, borders, diplomacy, defense, and public institutions should answer to the American people—not to foreign governments, international pressure, private interests, or outside political agendas.
Sovereignty means that the United States retains the practical ability to make decisions in its own national interest. Independence is incomplete when a country formally governs itself but allows outside governments, foreign-linked interests, concentrated political money, strategic dependencies, or international institutions to determine what its leaders can realistically do.
The Constitution establishes a political order in which public authority ultimately derives from the American people. Sovereignty therefore begins with accountability: elected officials and public institutions should be answerable to American citizens under American law.
International cooperation can be useful, treaties can advance national objectives, and alliances can sometimes strengthen American security. But cooperation should remain a tool of policy rather than a substitute for political independence.
A government that cannot determine who may enter, remain, work, settle, or acquire citizenship within its territory has surrendered one of the basic powers of statehood.
Border policy is therefore not merely an administrative question. It determines the scale and composition of immigration, affects labor markets and public services, and shapes the long-term character of the political community.
Political sovereignty requires more than prohibiting direct control by foreign governments. It also requires transparency about the money, relationships, lobbying campaigns, and institutional pressures that shape public decisions.
Federal law already prohibits foreign nationals—including foreign governments, foreign corporations, and most foreign citizens—from making contributions, donations, expenditures, or independent expenditures in connection with U.S. elections. The Foreign Agents Registration Act also requires certain agents acting on behalf of foreign principals to disclose their relationships, activities, receipts, and disbursements.
An America First approach can argue that these protections should be enforced aggressively and supplemented by stronger disclosure, conflict-of-interest rules, beneficial-ownership transparency, restrictions on indirect foreign-controlled spending, and clear public reporting whenever political actors are working for or being compensated by foreign principals.
American relations with allies should be evaluated by the same standard applied to adversaries: what concretely serves the United States?
That principle applies to Israel as much as it applies to every other country. Military aid, diplomatic protection, intelligence cooperation, arms sales, sanctions, trade preferences, and security commitments should be justified by measurable American interests rather than political pressure or a presumption that any foreign state is entitled to automatic support.
Organized influence can operate through many channels: lobbying organizations, major political donors, campaign spending, think tanks, advocacy groups, media institutions, business interests, defense contractors, consultants, and personal networks surrounding elected officials. Pro-Israel political organizations and wealthy donors are one important part of that landscape, just as other foreign-policy blocs promote policies favorable to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, China, Ukraine, Europe, and other governments or causes.
The central sovereignty question is not whether an organization or donor is legally American. It is whether concentrated money and institutional influence are pushing U.S. officials toward policies that cannot be clearly defended as serving the American people. Legal domestic advocacy should remain protected, but it should also be transparent enough for voters to see who is spending, what policies they are seeking, and which foreign interests stand to benefit.
The United States participates in treaties and international organizations because cooperation can serve national purposes. But international bodies do not possess an independent democratic mandate from the American electorate.
Commitments should therefore be entered carefully, reviewed periodically, and reconsidered when they conflict with constitutional authority or cease to provide sufficient benefit to the United States.
Major international commitments should follow constitutional processes and remain subject to American political review.
Membership should be judged by whether it improves U.S. security, prosperity, or diplomatic leverage.
Commitments should have defined objectives, equitable burden-sharing, and a clear relationship to American security.
International standards should not become a backdoor mechanism for bypassing domestic democratic accountability.
Political independence can be undermined by economic dependency. A country that cannot manufacture essential medicines, produce critical defense components, secure energy, maintain infrastructure, or access strategic technologies may discover that its formal sovereignty means little during a crisis.
America First therefore treats resilient supply chains, domestic productive capacity, energy security, and strategic industry as components of sovereignty rather than merely economic statistics.
Every major international commitment should be subjected to a basic test: does it preserve America’s freedom of action while producing a concrete benefit for the American people?
Sovereignty requires control over territory and political membership. The next section examines border enforcement, legal immigration, asylum, citizenship, assimilation, and how immigration policy should be evaluated according to the interests and cohesion of the American nation.
Continue to Immigration & Borders →