American power should be used with purpose. The United States should remain strong, independent, and capable of defending itself, while refusing to turn every foreign dispute into an American military obligation.
Foreign policy should begin with a simple question: what concrete American interest is at stake? Alliances, sanctions, military deployments, foreign aid, treaties, and wars should be justified by their contribution to American security, sovereignty, prosperity, or strategic position—not by habit, ideological ambition, or the preferences of another country.
The United States has interests throughout the world, but it does not have responsibility for every border dispute, civil war, ideological conflict, or regional rivalry. The existence of suffering or injustice abroad does not automatically create an American military obligation.
Foreign policy becomes dangerous when moral concern is converted too quickly into open-ended commitments. A president should be able to explain in concrete terms what is being defended, what success looks like, what the costs are, and what would cause the United States to end the commitment.
Some of the earliest American foreign-policy arguments emphasized independence of action. George Washington’s Farewell Address urged the young republic to expand commerce while avoiding unnecessary political entanglements. John Quincy Adams later warned against going abroad in search of enemies and causes to conquer.
These arguments were not calls for weakness. They reflected the belief that a republic should preserve its ability to decide for itself when war is necessary rather than allowing permanent commitments or ideological crusades to determine that choice in advance.
Non-intervention is sustainable only when other countries know that the United States can defend itself and retaliate decisively if attacked. Military strength, industrial capacity, secure borders, energy independence, cyber resilience, nuclear deterrence, and strategic geography all make a restrained foreign policy more credible.
The goal is not pacifism. If the United States is attacked or a vital interest is directly threatened, the country should possess overwhelming capability and clear political will. But military superiority should reduce the need for war rather than become a reason to search for more wars to fight.
Post-Cold War interventions repeatedly demonstrated how quickly limited military objectives can expand. Regime change can create power vacuums, occupation can require years of commitment, local political conflicts can resist outside solutions, and the costs of reconstruction can continue long after the original justification for war has changed.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria each arose from different circumstances and should not be treated as identical. But together they illustrate recurring dangers: mission creep, unclear end states, optimistic assumptions about political reconstruction, and commitments that become difficult to end once American prestige is attached to them.
The Western Hemisphere has a special strategic importance because threats close to American territory can affect the homeland directly. The original Monroe Doctrine opposed new European colonization in the Americas and warned outside powers against extending their political systems into the hemisphere.
A modern application should focus on preventing hostile powers from establishing strategically significant military, intelligence, communications, port, or infrastructure positions in the Americas that could be used against the United States.
That does not require the United States to dominate or govern other countries in the hemisphere. Hemispheric security should be distinguished from unnecessary intervention in the internal politics of neighboring states.
Alliances can serve American interests by deterring conflict, sharing intelligence, expanding access, and distributing military burdens. But an alliance becomes unhealthy when one country permanently carries responsibilities that wealthy partners are capable of bearing themselves.
European countries possess large economies, advanced technology, educated populations, and capable militaries. They should assume substantially greater responsibility for conventional defense in Europe. American support can remain important without making the United States the permanent first responder for every European security problem.
The same principle applies elsewhere: partnership should increase American security, not create automatic obligations disconnected from changing circumstances.
The Middle East contains important energy routes, military chokepoints, partners, adversaries, and counterterrorism concerns. But decades of American involvement also show the danger of being drawn into regional rivalries that local powers have stronger incentives to manage themselves.
Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and every other regional state should be treated as foreign countries whose interests sometimes overlap with America’s and sometimes do not. Cooperation should be judged case by case.
Military aid, diplomatic protection, sanctions, intelligence cooperation, arms sales, and potential military action should never be automatic. Policy toward Iran or any other state should be based on direct American security interests and realistic assessments of costs, escalation, and alternatives.
A country cannot treat every challenge as equally important. China possesses the population, industrial scale, technological capacity, economic weight, military modernization, and global ambitions necessary to compete with the United States across multiple dimensions at once.
That makes industrial strength at home a foreign-policy asset. Semiconductors, shipbuilding, energy, critical minerals, communications, cyber capabilities, advanced manufacturing, and resilient supply chains are as important to long-term competition as traditional military spending.
The objective should not be unnecessary confrontation or total economic isolation. It should be to prevent strategic dependency, preserve freedom of navigation, protect American technology, maintain a favorable balance of power in the Pacific, and avoid allowing economic relationships to become channels of coercion.
Taiwan matters strategically because of its geography, its role in advanced semiconductor production, and its position within the broader balance of power in the Western Pacific. A conflict over Taiwan could have enormous military and economic consequences for the United States.
For that reason, policy should combine strong regional deterrence with diplomatic caution. Allies and partners should strengthen their own defense capacity, critical semiconductor production should become less geographically concentrated, and American leaders should avoid rhetoric that turns every crisis into an automatic path to war.
Russia remains a major nuclear and military power, and war between the United States and Russia would carry extraordinary risks. The United States therefore has a strong interest in preventing direct military confrontation between the two powers.
European countries have the greatest immediate stake in the conventional security of Europe and should increasingly bear the material burden associated with it. American diplomacy should remain willing to pursue negotiated settlements and de-escalation where doing so can reduce the risk of a wider war without sacrificing concrete U.S. interests.
Any assistance to foreign governments should have defined strategic objectives, financial limits, accountability mechanisms, and a clear explanation of the American interest involved.
Foreign aid can sometimes advance legitimate goals: humanitarian relief after disasters, countering hostile influence, supporting strategically important partners, preventing instability, or securing access and cooperation.
But aid should never become permanent simply because it has existed for decades. Every program should face regular review. The amount, recipient, objective, and expected return should be transparent to taxpayers.
Sanctions can pressure governments, constrain military capabilities, deter certain behavior, or signal political consequences without immediate use of force. But sanctions can also fail, create workarounds, burden civilians, damage American businesses, or encourage foreign states to develop financial systems less dependent on the United States.
Sanctions should therefore have a defined objective, realistic enforcement plan, consideration of second-order effects, and conditions under which they can be removed.
Diplomacy is one of the tools by which powerful states manage rivalry. Negotiating with a government does not mean approving of its political system or accepting all of its demands.
American leaders should be willing to speak directly with adversaries when doing so can reduce misunderstanding, establish limits, secure prisoner releases, manage nuclear risks, end wars, or produce agreements that serve American interests.
The world contains countries with different political systems, cultures, religions, and historical experiences. The United States can prefer its own constitutional system without making the global transformation of every foreign government a permanent mission.
American diplomacy should focus primarily on how states behave toward the United States and the international balance of power. Human rights and political values can remain part of diplomacy without becoming an automatic justification for regime change or military intervention.
Major foreign-policy commitments should survive a clear national-interest test before American money, credibility, or lives are placed at risk.
Foreign policy determines when American power should be used. National defense determines whether the United States possesses the forces, industrial base, technology, infrastructure, and deterrent necessary to protect the country and make restraint credible.
Continue to National Defense →