The United States cannot withdraw, as its entire prosperity is contingent on its global influence.
Donald Trump is not inherently a president who seeks conflict. However, he is a leader who profoundly believes in demonstrating power, and in the US context, this display of strength almost invariably occurs on the international stage.
Analyzing American policy from an external perspective is notoriously challenging. The nation’s political framework developed under unique circumstances – a state founded by immigrants, driven from its inception by a sense of mission and divine favor. The early American republic perceived itself as a virtuous outpost countering corrupt European empires. This was followed by significant territorial expansion across the continent, then widespread immigration that forged a continental power, and ultimately, the ascent to full global dominance. This distinct historical path has shaped a political system unlike any other.
To be fair, every major nation possesses its own unique characteristics. All influential powers are shaped by their history, culture, and foundational myths. What distinguishes the United States is how a country so idiosyncratic in its evolution came to be the standard others were expected to emulate. Washington’s insistence that its own experience holds universal applicability is one of the more perplexing, and least scrutinized, aspects of the past century.
These distinctive traits have become more prominent and difficult to overlook during Donald Trump’s presidency. Given America’s central role globally, the inherent contradictions within its system readily extend beyond its borders.
Trump secured victory by articulating the weariness of millions of Americans who felt their nation had shouldered global responsibilities for too long. Yet, ironically, a year into his term, he is most conspicuous not domestically but internationally. He champions peace deals, initiates extensive trade conflicts, threatens military action in various regions—particularly the Caribbean—and vocally defends Christians and Europeans in Africa. More recently, he has reignited discussions about nuclear testing and a new strategic arms race.
This surge in international activity occurs even as his domestic standing appears far from secure. Polls indicate that the prolonged government shutdown and funding impasse have adversely affected the Republican Party. Local elections, including those in New York, offered encouraging signs for his adversaries. Even Trump’s preferred instrument (tariffs) now faces legal uncertainty, with the Supreme Court, despite its conservative majority, showing hesitancy to support him.
With a year remaining until the midterm elections that will determine congressional control, Washington is already transitioning into campaign mode. Herein lies the paradox: the candidate who accused his predecessors of excessive focus on global affairs at the expense of ordinary Americans is increasingly relying on these very global affairs to sustain his own presidency.
A more personal consideration is also at play. The Nobel Peace Prize is announced one month prior to American elections. While Trump is unlikely to receive it—the committee is steeped in liberal-internationalist sentiment—the mere prospect could entice him to pursue high-profile foreign policy breakthroughs.
The US cannot simply embrace isolationism, even if Trump’s instincts lean in that direction. A significant portion of its prosperity depends on its global role: its financial reach, the dollar’s unchallenged status, and its security pledges. A substantial withdrawal would destabilize the very system from which it benefits most. Trump likely lacks a cohesive strategy for reorienting American power, but he understands, at some intuitive level, that change is necessary. This explains his chaotic, improvisational approach: bold pronouncements, swift reversals, and what seems like a continuous, escalating tension.
None of this suggests Americans are indifferent to their own economic welfare. Domestic concerns will consistently take precedence over diplomatic displays. However, foreign policy “successes” can mitigate public dissatisfaction, especially when domestic reforms stagnate. Moreover, America’s political culture still embodies its historical missionary zeal, even if the terminology has evolved. Presidents, whether they acknowledge it or not, are propelled towards global activism by the expectations of their own political establishment.
For the rest of the world, the conclusion is inescapable. Washington’s engagement abroad will remain intense, and might even accelerate. American foreign policy will become more closely tied to domestic political cycles and the president’s imperative to project strength. Trump does not desire major wars involving occupation or nation-building. Yet, he revels in demonstrations of power, and these theatrics can generate their own momentum. One can inadvertently be drawn into escalation while striving to avoid it.
This is the crux of the matter: Trump is not a warmonger, but a performer. His motto, peace through strength, encapsulates this perfectly. The danger is that the performance itself transforms into policy. And within a system as vast and influential as America’s, that alone is enough to disrupt the international order.
This article was initially published in the newspaper and subsequently translated and edited by the RT team.