As the world braces for the return of Donald Trump, debates over the direction of United States foreign policy have reignited. From Syria to Ukraine and Mexico, President-elect Trump's impact looms large, generating both cautious calculations and bold expectations. Amid this fervor, it’s crucial to take a step back and assess recent presidencies in the light of historical and ideological frameworks. By examining Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Donald Trump’s approaches, we can better understand the potential trajectories of American foreign policy.
Wilsonianism, named after President Woodrow Wilson, emphasizes the promotion of democracy, self-determination and international cooperation through institutions and moral leadership. This ideology envisions the U.S. as a global advocate for democratic values and human rights, often justifying interventionist policies in the name of fostering global stability and peace.
Barack Obama – a symbol of hope and democratic values – emerged as a polarizing figure in foreign policy circles. While lauded domestically for championing civil rights and projecting a moral compass, his global strategy often confounded allies and adversaries alike. Renowned journalist Bob Woodward captured this tension in Obama’s wars: “He viewed the war as a labyrinth without exit, a problem where the tools of American democracy –hard power, soft power and idealism – seemed outmatched by history, tribalism and the sheer inertia of conflict.”
Instead of traditional boots-on-the-ground interventions, Obama leaned heavily on drone warfare – a cost-effective but controversial tool. His rhetoric emphasized the U.S. responsibility to defend democracy and human rights, yet his indecision in Syria and Afghanistan sowed chaos. By pursuing a “grassroots” strategy to implant democratic ideals in deeply divided societies, Obama’s Wilsonian aspirations collided with entrenched tribal and historical realities. The result: unmet promises and exacerbated instability in regions he sought to stabilize.
Jeffersonianism, rooted in the vision of Thomas Jefferson, emphasizes the safeguarding of democracy at home while maintaining a restrained approach abroad. This school of thought advocates for minimal foreign entanglements, prioritizing domestic prosperity and institutional integrity. It also underscores the importance of alliances only insofar as they align with national interests and ensure the preservation of American values.
Following the tumult of Trump's first term, Joe Biden’s presidency was heralded as a return to normalcy and multilateralism. His withdrawal from Afghanistan epitomized a Jeffersonian approach: prioritizing domestic stability and institutional integrity over extended foreign entanglements. However, the chaotic execution of that withdrawal – marked by harrowing images of desperate Afghans clinging to U.S. aircraft – tarnished America’s global image.
Biden’s foreign policy reflects a deep commitment to alliances and institutional frameworks. He reinvigorated NATO, emphasized trans-Atlantic ties and mobilized global support against Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. Yet his unwavering backing of Israel’s controversial policies in the Middle East exposed a glaring contradiction in his human-rights rhetoric. By selectively upholding democratic values, Biden risked undermining both U.S. credibility and the stability he sought to restore.
Well before his first step through the door of the White House, Donald Trump ignited a great fire in his homeland. Considering his first term, he is now more equipped to control foreign policy. Recent developments, such as the U.S.-Qatar-brokered cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon and the end of the Syrian civil war, signal how his attitude might evolve in the coming days. His assertion that this is “not our fight” indicates a shift toward a more selective and transactional foreign policy rooted in Hamiltonian realism.
Both his first term and early signs in his second term give clues about which school of foreign policy he will adopt: Hamiltonian. The Hamiltonian school of thought, named after Alexander Hamilton, prioritizes material gain and strategic superiority. Advocating for limited involvement abroad and a redirection of resources toward domestic development, this doctrine resonates with Trump’s pragmatic inclinations. If implemented, it could redefine America’s role in global conflicts.
In Syria, even the footsteps of a Hamiltonian approach may free Syria from Assad’s totalitarian chains. In Ukraine, Trump’s ‘creative’ and ‘interest-seeking’ nature could end the exhausting and vain battle for the U.S. By side-lining the establishment's influence, Trump could potentially achieve a recalibrated foreign policy that prioritizes strategic selectiveness over ideological adventurism.
Trump’s second term heralds the possibility of a transformative shift in U.S. foreign policy. Grounded in Hamiltonian realism, his administration has already signaled a departure from traditional interventionist paradigms, favoring a pragmatic, interest-driven strategy. By prioritizing material gains and strategic selectiveness, Trump may redefine America’s role in resolving global conflicts without overextending its resources.
The real challenge lies in overcoming institutional inertia and the entrenched influence of the foreign policy establishment. Success would not only reshape America’s engagement on the global stage but also set a precedent for a more balanced and sustainable foreign policy model in the 21st century. If Trump’s Hamiltonian vision is realized, it could mark a turning point – not just for the U.S. but for a global order recalibrated by strategic pragmatism.
