Trump’s America First policy is doing what the US has always done, only more obvious
The “America First” policy, while a relatively modern slogan, can be seen as a more explicit and overt expression of themes that have long been present in U.S. foreign policy. The argument is that the United States has often, throughout its history, prioritized its own national interests, even when cloaked in the language of international cooperation or humanitarianism. Trump’s policy, however, made this prioritization the central and stated goal, removing some of the traditional diplomatic layers.
Here are some historical parallels to consider:
* Isolationism vs. Interventionism: From the founding of the republic, there has been a recurring debate between those who advocate for non-involvement in foreign entanglements and those who believe the U.S. has a duty or a strategic interest in engaging with the world. George Washington’s Farewell Address warned against “entangling alliances,” a sentiment that was echoed by isolationists in the lead-up to both World Wars. The “America First” movement of the 1930s, for example, was a powerful force arguing against U.S. entry into World War II. Trump’s policy, with its emphasis on reducing military interventions and questioning the value of international alliances like NATO, taps directly into this historical isolationist strain.
* Protectionist Trade Policies: The U.S. has a long history of using tariffs and other protectionist measures to shield its domestic industries. In the 19th century, high tariffs were common, and the Republican party often championed them to protect American manufacturing. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which raised tariffs on thousands of imported goods, is a notorious example, widely seen as a factor that exacerbated the Great Depression. While the U.S. moved toward a more free-trade stance after World War II, Trump’s use of tariffs to pressure trade partners is a return to this earlier, protectionist tradition.
* Unilateralism: Even when the U.S. has been deeply engaged in international affairs, it has often acted unilaterally or prioritized its own interests over those of its allies. The Monroe Doctrine of 1823, for instance, established a sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere, warning European powers to stay out. While the U.S. was a key architect of post-World War II international institutions like the United Nations and the World Bank, it has also at times chosen to disregard international agreements or norms when it deemed them contrary to its interests. The “America First” approach takes this a step further by openly questioning the value of multilateralism and global institutions, and explicitly stating that U.S. interests will always take precedence.
In essence, the argument is that “America First” is not a radical departure from U.S. foreign policy, but rather an unvarnished and less diplomatically framed version of it. It brings to the forefront the long-standing tension between national interest and international cooperation, and presents a clear, unapologetic vision of the former.