Introduction: A Paradigm Shift in American Statecraft

The foreign policy of the Trump administration, encapsulated in the resonant slogan "America First," represents a deliberate and ideologically coherent departure from the 70-year bipartisan consensus that has governed American global leadership since the end of the Second World War. This shift is not merely a collection of ad-hoc, transactional decisions but the practical application of a distinct worldview that fundamentally redefines the American national interest, its moral purpose on the world stage, and its relationship with both allies and adversaries. This doctrine is animated by a diverse but aligned group of thinkers and policymakers who reject the foundational premises of the post-WWII liberal international order. To comprehend the "why" and "how" of this transformation, one must first understand the system it seeks to dismantle and the intellectual framework it proposes as a replacement. The "America First" doctrine is, at its core, a direct challenge to two pillars of post-war American statecraft: the rules-based international order and the philosophy of enlightened self-interest.

The traditional order that "America First" seeks to upend was born from the ashes of two devastating world wars. It was the product of a conscious and sustained effort by the United States to construct and maintain an open, rule-based, liberal world order that produced an unprecedented era of relative peace and prosperity.1 This system was designed to embed American power within a framework of international institutions, such as the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), as well as a web of norms and rules. This structure served a dual purpose: it legitimized American power by binding it to a shared moral purpose—the protection of human rights and the promotion of liberty—and it constrained the United States from acting in purely arbitrary ways that might harm the vital interests of its allies, thereby building trust and fostering cooperation.1 This architecture was not an act of altruism but a strategic calculation rooted in a philosophy of enlightened self-interest.

Enlightened self-interest is the ethical and political philosophy which posits that individuals or nations who act to further the interests of others, or the collective group to which they belong, ultimately serve their own long-term self-interest.2 The Marshall Plan stands as the archetypal example of this principle in action. By investing billions to rebuild a war-torn Europe, the United States recognized that a prosperous and stable continent would be a more reliable trading partner and a more resilient bulwark against Soviet expansionism, thereby directly enhancing American security and prosperity.4 This philosophy underpinned decades of American foreign policy, from security guarantees for allies in Europe and Asia to the provision of foreign aid, all based on the premise that a more peaceful, prosperous, and stable world was fundamentally in America's own national interest.4

The "America First" doctrine challenges this entire framework at its philosophical core. Its proponents perceive the constraints and obligations of the liberal international order not as a source of American strength but as a form of systemic exploitation. From this perspective, allies are often "free-riders" who reap the benefits of American security guarantees without paying their fair share, while strategic competitors like China have manipulated the open trading system to America's detriment.1 The doctrine thus seeks to replace the concept of "enlightened self-interest" with a more narrowly defined, transactional, and realist conception of the national interest. This new paradigm insists that every foreign policy action—be it an alliance commitment, a trade deal, or an aid package—must yield a direct, tangible, and immediate benefit for the American people.5

The political resonance and perceived urgency of this ideological shift cannot be understood in a vacuum. It has emerged as a direct response to a widespread perception of American decline and elite failure over the past two decades.4 A generation of Americans has come of age in an era where foreign policy setbacks have appeared more frequent than advances. The long and costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which failed to produce stable democracies and were seen as draining American blood and treasure, fostered a deep disillusionment with foreign intervention and "nation-building".4 The 2008 global financial crisis, which originated in the United States, eroded trust in global elites and the international economic system they managed.7 Concurrently, the rapid economic rise of China, often perceived as coming at the expense of the American manufacturing sector and middle class, created a narrative of national overextension and strategic vulnerability.4 "America First" ideologues have effectively harnessed this narrative, arguing that the post-war model of "enlightened self-interest" has demonstrably failed to protect the economic well-being of ordinary Americans and has needlessly entangled the nation in "endless wars".5 The doctrine is therefore framed not merely as an alternative philosophy but as a necessary and urgent corrective to a system that its proponents portray as fundamentally broken. Its political power derives from its promise to abandon a "globalist" project that is seen as benefiting elites in Washington and foreign capitals at the expense of the American heartland.

This report will dissect the intellectual and ideological architecture of this profound shift in American foreign policy. Part I will trace the doctrine's intellectual origins, examining its roots in the paleoconservative movement and its more recent philosophical formalization within the postliberal right. Part II will provide in-depth ideological profiles of the key architects and executors of this policy, analyzing their distinct worldviews and how those beliefs shape their actions. Finally, Part III will analyze how these ideologies justify specific, transformative policy actions, from the rejection of multilateral agreements to the embrace of economic nationalism, and assess the broader consequences for the United States and the world.

Part I: The Intellectual Architecture of "America First"

Chapter 1: The Paleoconservative Roots: Pat Buchanan's "Republic, Not an Empire"

To understand the intellectual foundations of the modern "America First" movement is to understand the political and intellectual career of Patrick J. Buchanan. Long before Donald Trump descended the golden escalator, Buchanan was articulating the core tenets that would later animate the MAGA movement. His presidential campaigns in the 1990s and his voluminous writings, most notably the 1999 book A Republic, Not an Empire, served as a prophetic blueprint for the three pillars of the current doctrine: a foreign policy of non-interventionism, a domestic policy of economic nationalism, and a political strategy grounded in a "culture war" that frames global and domestic politics as a singular, existential struggle.8 Buchanan was the voice in the wilderness, warning against the very "globalist" consensus that the Republican Party establishment of his time had come to embrace.

The first and most central tenet of Buchananism is a foreign policy of non-interventionism. Drawing inspiration from George Washington's Farewell Address and its warning against foreign entanglements, Buchanan argued that the United States had transformed from a republic into a hopelessly overextended and interventionist empire.9 He distinguished his position, which he termed a "doctrine of disengagement," from pure isolationism, arguing not that America should ignore the world, but that it should cease its role as the world's policeman.8 In his view, security guarantees extended to other nations through alliances like NATO were precisely the kind of entangling commitments that Washington had warned against. He saw them as serving no vital American interest and risking American involvement in distant conflicts that had no bearing on the nation's security.9 Consequently, he advocated for the withdrawal of American troops from their long-standing posts in Europe and Asia, arguing that nations like Japan and South Korea should be responsible for their own defense, albeit with continued access to American weaponry and strategic support.9

The second pillar of Buchanan's worldview is a staunch economic nationalism. He was one of the earliest and most vociferous critics on the right of the free-trade consensus that dominated both political parties in the 1990s. He vehemently opposed agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO), arguing that these pillars of globalization were "decimating the middle class and outsourcing our manufacturing base" to low-wage countries.11 He viewed free trade not through the lens of economic efficiency and consumer benefit, but as a direct threat to American national sovereignty and the economic well-being of the American worker.11 This critique, which portrayed a "globalist" elite as sacrificing American industry on the altar of free-trade ideology, is a direct intellectual antecedent to the Trump administration's use of tariffs and its focus on bilateral trade deals designed to protect domestic industries.

The third and perhaps most enduring element of Buchanan's legacy is his framing of politics as a "culture war." His famous address to the 1992 Republican National Convention described "a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America".8 This framework cast political opponents not as rivals with differing policy preferences, but as existential enemies in a struggle over fundamental values. He identified domestic "leftism," multiculturalism, and secularism as profound threats to the nation's traditional character.8 This worldview has been adopted and amplified by contemporary "America First" ideologues, most notably Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who explicitly calls for an "American crusade" against these same forces.13 This creates a powerful ideological linkage where foreign and domestic enemies are seen as part of the same "globalist" and "leftist" threat, justifying a confrontational approach to both.

For decades, these views placed Buchanan on the outer fringes of the Republican party. The GOP of the 1990s and 2000s was dominated by a fusion of neoconservative interventionists who championed an assertive, democracy-promoting foreign policy, and free-market globalists who advocated for the very trade agreements Buchanan decried.10 His ideas were dismissed as isolationist, protectionist, and out of step with the triumphant post-Cold War consensus. The rise of Donald Trump, however, represents the successful hostile takeover of the Republican Party by this once-marginalized paleoconservative wing. The core ideas did not change; the power structure within the party did. Figures like Vice President JD Vance are now widely seen as the ideological successors to Buchanan, bringing his brand of national conservatism from the fringe to the center of American power.14

This ideological revolution explains the deep and often bitter schism that has emerged within the Republican foreign policy establishment. Figures like John Bolton, a classic neoconservative hawk who served in multiple Republican administrations, became one of Trump's fiercest critics after serving as his National Security Advisor.17 The conflict was not merely personal; it was ideological. Trump's "America First" doctrine, with its skepticism of alliances, its disdain for "endless wars," and its transactional approach to diplomacy, represents the victory of the very ideology that Bolton's entire career was built to oppose. The clash between Trump and Bolton was, in essence, the final, decisive battle in the long war for the soul of the Republican Party's foreign policy, a battle in which the paleoconservative vision of Pat Buchanan ultimately prevailed.18

Chapter 2: The Rise of the Postliberal Right

What is often dismissed by critics as the incoherent "Trumpism" of a singular political personality has, in fact, evolved into a more structured and coherent intellectual movement. Gathering under the banners of "national conservatism" or, more academically, "postliberalism," this school of thought provides a deep philosophical justification for the "America First" agenda, aiming to create a durable ideology that can outlast its most famous proponent.21 This movement goes beyond mere policy preference, offering a fundamental critique of the modern liberal order and proposing a radical alternative for America's domestic and foreign policy.

At its heart, postliberalism is a philosophy of decline and restoration. Its adherents argue that modern liberalism, with its relentless emphasis on individual autonomy, free markets, and secularism, has led to a "civilization in decline".21 In their view, society has become "unmoored from family, tradition and religion," leading to social decay, atomization, and a loss of collective purpose.21 They contend that liberalism's core promise—the liberation of the individual from all unchosen obligations—has proven to be a destructive force, eroding the very social institutions that give life meaning and stability.

From this critique emerges a set of core tenets that directly inform the "America First" worldview. First is the primacy of the collective over the individual. Postliberal thinkers argue that political order is not built on a social contract between autonomous individuals, but rather grows organically from a "collection of collectives like the family and the tribe," with loyalty as the primary binding agent.21 In this framework, the "common good" or the "public interest" takes precedence over abstract individual rights. This philosophical position provides a powerful justification for a strong executive branch. Postliberals argue that the presidency has been "defanged" by Congress and the courts, and that a powerful executive is necessary to act decisively in the national interest, unconstrained by the proceduralism and gridlock of the liberal state.21

In the realm of foreign policy, this worldview translates into an amoral, realist approach to international relations. The nation-state, defined by a common culture and heritage, is seen as the only natural and legitimate organizing principle of the world's political order.21 Consequently, postliberals are deeply suspicious of international institutions like the UN, the EU, and even NATO, viewing them as "per definition suspect" and a threat to national sovereignty.21 This provides the intellectual framework for the Trump administration's withdrawal from international agreements and its open disparagement of long-standing alliances. Sovereignty, in this view, "trumps any moral judgement of the internal affairs of other states," leading to a foreign policy that prioritizes stability and national interest over the promotion of democracy or human rights.21

Finally, postliberalism champions a robust economic nationalism. It views the liberal consensus on globalization and free trade as a direct cause of the social and economic decay it decries. Postliberals argue that unfettered global capitalism has destroyed national industries, hollowed out communities, and undermined the economic security of the working class. Therefore, they advocate for protectionist policies, such as tariffs, and a proactive industrial policy designed to re-shore critical industries and protect the national economy from the disruptive forces of the global market.23

This intellectual movement has created a powerful, mutually reinforcing dynamic with the populist base of the "America First" agenda. While the average voter may not be reading the academic works of postliberal thinkers like Patrick Deneen, they viscerally respond to the core sentiment that the system has been rigged by "globalist elites" who do not have their interests at heart.24 The postliberal intellectuals, figures such as Vice President JD Vance, effectively translate this raw populist anger into a sophisticated and coherent governing philosophy.14 They provide the high-brow, theoretical language that justifies the gut-level instincts of the base. This alliance of convenience between populist energy and intellectual architecture makes the "America First" movement far more durable than a single political personality. It has fostered an entire ecosystem of think tanks, such as the America First Policy Institute, along with publications and a new generation of politicians who are capable of carrying the ideology forward.5 This intellectual scaffolding ensures that the challenge to the post-war liberal order is not a fleeting political moment, but a sustained and deeply rooted ideological project with a clear vision for reshaping America's role in the world.

Part II: The Ideologues and Their Worldviews

The foreign policy of the Trump administration is shaped by a cohort of key figures who, while united under the "America First" banner, bring distinct ideological perspectives and priorities to the table. Their worldviews, forged in experiences ranging from the battlefields of Afghanistan to the halls of Congress and the studios of cable news, represent different strains of a broader rejection of the post-war foreign policy consensus. Understanding the interplay between these figures—the pragmatic hawk, the national conservative intellectual, the warrior-diplomat, the intelligence realist, the anti-interventionist, and the Christian nationalist crusader—is essential to deciphering the administration's actions on the world stage. Their internal debates, alignments, and points of friction define the often-unpredictable application of the "America First" doctrine.

The following table provides a concise, comparative overview of the administration's key foreign policy architects. It serves as a cognitive map, allowing for a clear grasp of the different ideological currents at play before delving into the detailed individual profiles that follow. By juxtaposing their core worldviews, stances on alliances, and perceptions of primary threats, the table immediately highlights both the common ground and the potential tensions within the "America First" coalition. This synthesis of complex information into an easily digestible format is crucial for understanding the internal dynamics that drive this transformative period in American statecraft.

Table 1: Key Foreign Policy Personnel: Ideological Stances and Core Beliefs

Chapter 3: The Pragmatic Hawk: Secretary of State Marco Rubio

As Secretary of State, Marco Rubio occupies a pivotal position within the administration, serving as a bridge between the traditional Republican foreign policy establishment and the more radical "America First" movement. Described as a "late convert" to the cause, Rubio has adapted his historically hawkish and interventionist views to fit the new paradigm, embodying a form of pragmatic realism that seeks to implement the "America First" agenda through the machinery of the State Department.3 His tenure is defined by a transactional worldview that fundamentally re-evaluates America's global commitments through a strict, interest-based lens.

Rubio's core ideology is grounded in the belief that the post-war American-made international order has been systematically abused by other nations, who have used its rules and institutions "to serve their interest at the expense of ours".3 This perspective leads him to a simple but revolutionary principle for American statecraft: every dollar of foreign spending, every alliance commitment, and every diplomatic engagement must be justified by its direct contribution to making America "safer, stronger or more prosperous".3 This transactional calculus rejects the older notion of "enlightened self-interest," where investments in global stability were seen as an indirect but vital benefit to the United States. For Rubio, the return on investment must be direct, measurable, and clearly advantageous to the American people.

This worldview has been translated into dramatic and often disruptive policy actions. The most striking example was his department's order to halt nearly all U.S. foreign aid programs overnight.3 This move, while implemented with a degree of chaos that necessitated a partial reversal, perfectly exemplifies the "America First" principle in its purest form. It treated foreign assistance not as a tool of soft power, a moral duty, or a long-term investment in stability, but as a pure cost that must be eliminated unless it provides an immediate and demonstrable return for the United States. The initial directive to cut everything first and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to resume reflects a deep-seated ideological skepticism toward the very concept of foreign aid.3

Rubio's approach to the Middle East further illustrates this pragmatic, interest-based realism. He maintains a staunchly pro-Israel stance, consistent with his long-held political positions.26 Yet, this support is not unconditional. He has publicly warned the Israeli government against annexing the West Bank, a move favored by parts of its ruling coalition. This warning was not delivered on moral grounds or out of concern for the Palestinian cause, but because he and the president viewed such a move as "counterproductive" to the administration's broader strategic goal of building a robust anti-Iran coalition that includes key Arab states.43 This demonstrates a willingness to subordinate even a close ally's domestic political priorities to what the administration defines as America's overriding strategic interests. Similarly, his diplomatic pressure on the Iraqi government to disarm "Iran-backed militias" is driven by the clear-eyed assessment that these groups pose a direct threat to U.S. personnel and undermine the sovereignty of a key regional partner, thereby harming American interests.25

The chaotic rollout and subsequent partial retraction of the foreign aid cut reveal a critical tension at the heart of the "America First" project: the clash between ideological purity and the practical realities of governance. The initial impulse to slash all aid that does not directly and immediately benefit America was a clear expression of the core doctrine.3 However, this ideological zeal quickly collided with the unintended consequences of its application. The realization that cutting off funding to camps holding captured Islamic State fighters in Syria could risk a mass breakout of jihadists, thereby making America demonstrably less safe, forced a pragmatic retreat.3 Rubio's subsequent backtracking to create a broad exemption for "life-saving humanitarian assistance" shows that even the most committed ideologues must sometimes bow to the complex realities of the international system. This episode suggests a recurring pattern for the administration's foreign policy: bold, disruptive actions driven by ideological conviction, followed by messy, ad-hoc adjustments as the intricate and often unforeseen consequences of those actions become apparent. The core ideology remains the guiding star, but its application in a complex world is likely to be erratic, unpredictable, and marked by a constant tension between revolutionary zeal and the pragmatic demands of statecraft.

Chapter 4: The National Conservative: Vice President JD Vance

If Marco Rubio represents the pragmatic adaptation of the old guard to the new "America First" reality, Vice President JD Vance embodies its intellectual and ideological core. As the administration's chief postliberal theorist and the most direct intellectual successor to Pat Buchanan, Vance provides the philosophical depth and civilizational framework for the movement's populist instincts.14 His worldview is defined by a profound pessimism about the state of Western civilization and a deeply held conviction that the most significant threats to America are not external and military, but internal and cultural.14

Vance's 2025 speech at the Munich Security Conference stands as a seminal text of the "America First" doctrine and a direct challenge to the transatlantic establishment. In a forum traditionally dedicated to discussing external security threats, Vance provocatively argued that Europe's greatest danger comes not from Russia or China, but "from within".29 He painted a picture of a continent besieged by an "entrenched elite" that has used the judiciary to suppress dissent, eroded free speech to maintain its "cartel" in power, and ignored voters' valid concerns about "mass immigration".30 This speech fundamentally reframed the basis of the transatlantic alliance. It was no longer a partnership for shared defense against external adversaries, but a new front in a global culture war between national populists and a decadent liberal "elite."

This worldview leads to an open contempt for the existing alliance structure. Vance has derided Europe as a "permanent security vassal of the United States" and dismissed NATO as little more than a "welfare client" that has "suckled off the teat of America's willingness to actually fight and win wars".13 His stated goal is not necessarily to abolish these alliances outright, but to force American allies into a state of "strategic autonomy." By shedding the burden of defending Europe, he argues, the United States can free up its resources to focus on its own domestic renewal and the more pressing strategic challenge posed by China.28

This ideology is clearly reflected in the administration's policy actions. On Ukraine, Vance has consistently advocated for a "reasonable settlement" with Russia, a position that implies accepting Russian territorial gains.14 He views the protracted conflict not as a noble defense of democracy against authoritarian aggression, but as a costly distraction from America's more important priorities at home and in the Pacific.28 His interactions with Israel, while outwardly supportive, reveal the "America First" power dynamic in stark terms. In a meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Vance's blunt declaration, "We don't want a vassal state," was a clear assertion of American primacy and a redefinition of the alliance as a partnership conducted strictly on American terms.44 This was further demonstrated by his public criticism of the Israeli Knesset's preliminary vote on West Bank annexation, which he called an "insult".44 This rebuke showed that even a close ally's domestic political agenda would not be allowed to interfere with the administration's broader strategic calculations in the region.48

Vance's ideology represents a fundamental redefinition of the "shared values" that have long been considered the bedrock of the post-war international order. The transatlantic alliance, in particular, was founded on the idea of a community of nations united by a commitment to liberal democracy. Vance explicitly severs this connection. In his Munich speech, he argued that because European elites have abandoned the traditional, conservative values that he believes allowed them to prevail in the Cold War, the very moral purpose of NATO has dissolved.30 He is attempting to replace the old basis of alliance—shared political systems (democracy vs. autocracy)—with a new one based on shared cultural values (nationalism and traditionalism vs. globalism and liberalism). This explains the administration's notable affinity for authoritarian "strong men" like Vladimir Putin or Hungary's Viktor Orbán, while simultaneously showing disdain for the leaders of traditional democratic allies like Germany or Canada. From the national conservative perspective, a leader who champions national sovereignty, traditional values, and cultural conservatism is a more natural ideological ally than the leader of a liberal democracy who embraces multiculturalism and global cooperation. This represents a revolutionary reordering of the geopolitical landscape, where the fault lines are drawn not between forms of government, but between competing visions of civilization itself.

Chapter 5: The Warrior-Intellectuals: Mike Waltz and John Ratcliffe

Within the "America First" foreign policy team, a distinct and influential strain of thought is embodied by figures like Mike Waltz and John Ratcliffe. These are the warrior-intellectuals, individuals whose worldviews are shaped by direct experience in the military and intelligence communities. They represent the hawkish, realist wing of the movement, focusing on the pragmatic application of hard power to secure clearly defined American interests. While fully aligned with the "America First" principle of prioritizing the nation, their approach emphasizes strategic engagement and competition over isolation, arguing that America must be present and assertive on the world stage to defeat its adversaries.

Mike Waltz, who has served as both National Security Advisor and Ambassador to the United Nations, brings the perspective of a former Green Beret to the highest levels of policy-making.36 The Special Forces doctrine of working "by, with, and through" local partners is central to his worldview.36 He believes in the necessity of alliances and partnerships, but his support is strictly conditional. His combat experience in Afghanistan left him highly critical of allies, particularly European NATO members, whom he viewed as contributing under-resourced forces that were unwilling to share the risks of combat.36 His guiding principle is "America First, not America Alone," but this partnership demands that allies "level up" and bear a much greater share of the security burden.36 Waltz sees the world as an arena of constant competition. He argues that if the United States withdraws from this arena, a vacuum will inevitably be created that adversaries like China will rush to fill.50

Waltz justifies the "America First" approach through a lens of national capacity and strategic prioritization. He contends that decades of globalization have weakened the American defense industrial base, making it impossible for the country to continue to "police the world" while simultaneously sending its manufacturing jobs to its primary competitor, China.51 Therefore, U.S. support for allies must be contingent on their own commitment to building their military strength. This, in turn, allows the United States to conserve its resources and focus on what he and others in the administration see as the paramount threat to American security and prosperity: the Chinese Communist Party.52

John Ratcliffe, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, embodies an even more focused version of this worldview. His perspective is that of an intelligence realist, and it is defined by a singular, overriding preoccupation: the existential and civilizational threat posed by the People's Republic of China. In his public statements and writings, Ratcliffe has been unequivocal, labeling China "the greatest threat to America today, and the greatest threat to democracy and freedom worldwide since World War Two".33 He does not see China as a mere competitor, but as an adversary with the explicit goal of achieving total global domination—economically, militarily, and technologically.54

This stark worldview justifies a wholesale reorientation of the entire U.S. national security and intelligence apparatus. During his previous tenure as Director of National Intelligence, Ratcliffe led a historic shift in the intelligence community's priorities, moving resources and focus away from the post-9/11 emphasis on counterterrorism and the Cold War-era focus on Russia, and directing them squarely at China.32 He views China's multifaceted strategy—from its economic espionage, which he terms "Rob, replicate, and replace," to its rapid military modernization—as two fronts in the same undeclared war against the United States.54 For Ratcliffe, every foreign policy decision, from alliance management to trade negotiations to cybersecurity protocols, must be evaluated through the single, critical prism of how it affects America's ability to prevail in the great power competition with China.31

A fundamental tension, however, exists between the strategic vision of figures like Waltz and the broader ideological impulses of the "America First" administration. Waltz's Green Beret-informed belief in the necessity of deep, patient, and long-term engagement with partners to build their capacity and foster trust is a core element of his strategic thinking.36 This approach requires significant investment in the tools of soft power, such as foreign aid, military training programs, and diplomatic relationship-building. Yet, these are the very tools that the administration, driven by its deep skepticism of foreign spending and "nation-building," is actively dismantling.3 The administration's decision to shutter or drastically cut funding for organizations like USAID directly undermines the strategy that its own senior national security officials believe is necessary to win the long-term competition with adversaries like China.27 This creates a significant policy paradox. While the warrior-intellectuals may advocate for a strategy of selective, smart, and partner-centric engagement, they may find themselves lacking the institutional support and financial resources to effectively implement it. The result could be a foreign policy that is hawkish and confrontational in its rhetoric but hollow and ineffective in its practice, leaving America less prepared for the very competition it has identified as its highest priority.

Chapter 6: The Restrainer: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard

Representing the non-interventionist wing of the "America First" coalition, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard brings a unique and often controversial perspective to the administration's foreign policy debates. A combat veteran of the Iraq War, Gabbard has made foreign policy the cornerstone of her political identity, an identity defined by a profound and consistent opposition to what she terms "counterproductive, interventionist wars".39 Her worldview is a complex blend of hawkishness against specific threats and a dovish restraint regarding broader military entanglements, a combination that aligns with the "America First" movement's deep-seated skepticism of American globalism.

Gabbard describes her own foreign policy philosophy as being both a "hawk and a dove".39 The "dove" aspect of her worldview is the most prominent, characterized by a vehement opposition to "regime change wars." She argues that American military interventions in countries like Iraq, Libya, and Syria have been catastrophic failures, undermining U.S. national security, costing trillions of dollars, and creating power vacuums that are inevitably filled by terrorist organizations like ISIS and Al-Qaeda.39 This conviction justifies her most controversial actions, including her 2017 meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. She frames such engagements not as an endorsement of dictators, whom she acknowledges as "brutal," but as a necessary act of diplomacy aimed at finding peaceful solutions and avoiding even more destructive wars.40

Simultaneously, the "hawk" in Gabbard's philosophy is directed squarely at the "war against terrorists," specifically Islamic extremist groups. She believes that these organizations, which she identifies as the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, must be ruthlessly and decisively defeated.39 This justifies her support for targeted military actions, such as drone strikes and special forces operations, which she sees as a more effective and less costly alternative to large-scale ground invasions.39 Her signature legislative effort, the "Stop Arming Terrorists Act," encapsulates this dual perspective. It reflects her belief that U.S. policy in conflicts like the Syrian civil war has often been counterproductive, inadvertently providing support to rebel groups affiliated with the very terrorist organizations America should be fighting.39

Gabbard extends this principle of restraint to America's relationships with other great powers. She consistently warns against escalating tensions with nuclear-armed Russia and China, fearing that a new Cold War mentality could lead the world to "sleepwalk" into a catastrophic nuclear conflict.40 Her position on the war in Ukraine is illustrative of this view. She has argued that the conflict "could have easily been avoided" if the United States and NATO had acknowledged Russia's "legitimate security concerns" regarding the alliance's eastward expansion.39 This perspective, while highly controversial in mainstream foreign policy circles, aligns perfectly with the Trump administration's desire to seek a negotiated settlement in Ukraine and pivot away from what it views as a secondary European conflict.59

Gabbard's non-interventionist argument is not merely a strategic or moral one; it is also fundamentally economic and political. She consistently links the high cost of foreign wars to the neglect of domestic priorities. Her central message is that the trillions of dollars spent on "wasteful regime change wars" are resources that have been stolen from the American people and should have been reinvested in domestic needs like healthcare, infrastructure, and education.40 This powerful framing connects the abstract debate over foreign policy directly to the populist economic message that lies at the heart of the "America First" movement. It transforms the discussion from one of esoteric geopolitics into a tangible, kitchen-table issue that resonates deeply with the administration's domestic base. By presenting the choice as "a road in Ohio or a war in Syria," Gabbard provides a potent political justification for a broad-based withdrawal from America's global commitments, making the non-interventionist stance not just a foreign policy preference, but a core component of a populist national renewal project.

Chapter 7: The Crusader: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth

If other members of the foreign policy team represent ideological shifts within the realm of traditional statecraft, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth represents a radical departure from it. A former Fox News host and combat veteran, Hegseth is the administration's most fervent ideologue, a Christian nationalist whose worldview is not primarily concerned with the balance of power between nations but with a civilizational holy war for the soul of the West.13 His writings, particularly his 2020 book American Crusade: Our Fight to Stay Free, provide a clear and unapologetic manifesto for this vision, framing geopolitics as a Manichean struggle between the forces of good—Americanism, Christianity, and nationalism—and the forces of evil—Islam, "leftism," and globalism.

Hegseth's worldview, as articulated in his book, is one of "perpetual conflict" that cannot be resolved through normal political or diplomatic means.13 He identifies two primary and inextricably linked enemies of America: international Islam and domestic "leftism".13 He argues that "leftists" have "surrounded traditional American patriots on all sides, ready to close in for the kill".13 For Hegseth, ultimate victory for America requires the complete defeat and eradication of a host of "isms" that he views as existential threats: globalism, socialism, secularism, environmentalism, Islamism, and leftism.13 This is not a policy debate; it is a call to arms for an "American crusade" to save Western civilization from its enemies, both foreign and domestic.

This civilizational framework leads to a categorical rejection of the entire post-war multilateral order. Hegseth is openly and virulently hostile to America's traditional alliances and international institutions. He dismisses NATO as a "relic" and nothing more than a "defense arrangement for Europe, paid for and underwritten by the United States," which should be "scrapped and remade".13 He argues bluntly that "the defense of Europe is not our problem; been there, done that, twice".13 The United Nations is similarly condemned as a "fully globalist organization that aggressively advances an anti-American, anti-Israel, and anti-freedom agenda".13 In place of these "globalist" structures, Hegseth advocates for alliances based on shared civilizational and religious values. His fervent support for Israel, for example, is not based on shared democratic values or strategic interests, but is explicitly framed in the language of a medieval crusade. "We don't want to fight, but, like our fellow Christians a thousand years ago, we must," he writes. "We Christians – alongside our Jewish friends and their remarkable army in Israel – need to pick up the sword of unapologetic Americanism and defend ourselves." For Hegseth, Israel embodies the very "soul of our American crusade".62

This crusading worldview provides a moral and ideological justification for a foreign and defense policy based on overwhelming and unrestrained hard power. Hegseth believes there is "no replacement for hard power" and is dismissive of the value of diplomacy, international law, or "strong speeches".63 This conviction underpins his expansion of deadly military counternarcotics operations in Latin America, which he reframes as a righteous war against "terrorists" who are "poisoning" Americans.64 It also explains his shocking argument that U.S. troops should not be bound by the constraints of the Geneva Conventions, but should be "unleashed" to become a "ruthless" and "overwhelmingly lethal" force that wins wars "according to our own rules".62 Furthermore, his perception of Muslim immigration to Europe as a civilizational "invasion" and a form of nonviolent conquest he calls "hegira" justifies the most extreme anti-immigration policies and a profoundly hostile posture toward Muslim-majority nations.13

Hegseth's ideology represents the ultimate and most complete fusion of the domestic culture war with foreign policy. He explicitly collapses the distinction between the two, stating, "we have domestic enemies, and we have international allies," and that it is time for America to form stronger bonds with those overseas who share the same traditionalist "principles".41 In this framework, the fight against "leftism" and secularism at home is indivisible from the fight against "Islamism" and "globalism" abroad. They are all merely different fronts in the same great "American Crusade." Under this worldview, a nation's alignment with the United States is determined less by its strategic interests or its form of government, and more by its position in a global culture war. This leads to a foreign policy that is intensely ideological, binary, and hostile to the very concept of a pluralistic international community. It is the most radical, and potentially the most disruptive, ideological current driving the transformation of American foreign policy.

Part III: Doctrine in Action: Justifying Policy Transformation

Chapter 8: Alliances and Multilateralism: The Rejection of the "Globalist" Order

The Trump administration's approach to international alliances and multilateral institutions represents one of the most dramatic breaks with 70 years of American foreign policy. This is not simply a matter of tactical disagreement or a call for reform, but a fundamental, ideologically-driven rejection of the post-war order itself. The core justification, synthesized from the worldviews of figures like JD Vance and Pete Hegseth, is that these institutions are "globalist" constructs designed to subordinate American sovereignty and national interests to the will of other nations and unaccountable international bureaucracies.6 From this perspective, withdrawing from treaties, questioning alliance commitments, and defunding international organizations is not an act of isolationism, but a necessary reclamation of national freedom and a righteous refusal to continue being exploited by "free-riding" allies and strategic rivals.1

This ideology is vividly demonstrated in the administration's policies toward its most significant commitments. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), long considered the cornerstone of transatlantic security, is a primary target. President Trump has repeatedly stated he would not commit to defending NATO members who do not spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense, a position echoed by his team.27 This is justified by the belief, articulated forcefully by Vance and Hegseth, that the alliance has devolved into a one-sided "welfare" arrangement where the United States effectively subsidizes Europe's security.13 Hegseth takes this logic to its ultimate conclusion, calling NATO a "relic" that should be "scrapped," arguing that "the defense of Europe is not our problem".13 This transforms Article 5's mutual defense clause from a sacred commitment into a transactional contract, contingent on financial contributions.

The administration's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change is justified by a similar logic of sovereignty and economic fairness. President Trump has characterized the accord as "very unfair at the highest level" to the United States, contending that it imposes crippling economic costs on American industry while allowing major competitors like China to continue polluting with impunity.65 The withdrawal is framed as a defense of the American economy and a rejection of an international agreement that is seen as an infringement on national sovereignty, designed to "undermine our economy" and "hamstring our workers" for no tangible American benefit.65

This hostility extends to a wide range of international organizations. The administration has withdrawn from the World Health Organization (WHO), citing its "mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic" and what it calls "onerous payments from the US".67 It has also sanctioned officials of the International Criminal Court (ICC), accusing the body of improperly targeting American and Israeli citizens.27 In each case, the justification is the same: these multilateral bodies are portrayed as corrupt, inefficient, and biased against the interests of the United States and its key allies, and therefore unworthy of American funding or participation.27

The administration's deliberate withdrawal from international leadership, justified by the "America First" doctrine, is not occurring in a geopolitical vacuum. A significant body of evidence indicates that this retreat is creating a strategic void that the People's Republic of China is actively and systematically exploiting.3 As the United States steps back, Beijing steps forward, using the opportunity to advance its own vision of international order. This is accomplished through expansive economic projects like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which establishes China as the primary development partner for much of the Global South, and new security frameworks like the Global Security Initiative (GSI), which presents an alternative to the U.S. system of military alliances.68 By ceding its leadership role in international bodies, the U.S. allows China to gain greater influence and shape global norms and standards on critical emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and green energy.68 This reveals the central and potentially self-defeating paradox of the "America First" foreign policy. In its quest to shed the perceived "burdens" of global leadership in order to better focus its resources on the strategic competition with China, the administration is inadvertently surrendering the very institutional frameworks, alliances, and soft power that have historically been among America's greatest advantages in that competition. This retreat risks making the long-term challenge from China harder, not easier, to win.

Chapter 9: The Economics of Sovereignty: Tariffs and Foreign Aid

The "America First" doctrine extends its revolutionary logic deep into the realm of international economics, replacing the post-war consensus on free trade and development aid with a nationalist, zero-sum worldview. From this perspective, the global economy is not a system of mutual benefit through comparative advantage, but an arena of fierce competition where other nations have unfairly exploited American openness. Trade deficits are viewed not as a complex macroeconomic phenomenon but as a straightforward scorecard of national loss and a sign of economic weakness and exploitation.69 Similarly, foreign aid is re-categorized from a tool of "enlightened self-interest" into an act of global charity that a fiscally strained America can no longer afford, an expenditure that lacks a direct and immediate benefit to the American taxpayer.3

This ideology provides the justification for the administration's most disruptive economic policies, particularly the widespread use of tariffs. The administration has reframed trade policy from a matter of economic efficiency to one of national security and sovereignty. By declaring the persistent U.S. trade deficit a "national emergency," President Trump has invoked powerful executive authorities, such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), to impose broad-based tariffs on imports from nearly all countries.69 The stated goal is to achieve "reciprocity"—to force other countries to lower their tariffs on American goods to match the lower rates in the U.S..69 The justification is threefold: to protect American workers and industries from what is seen as unfair foreign competition, to incentivize the re-shoring of critical supply chains that have become a geopolitical vulnerability, and to reassert American economic sovereignty in a global system perceived as rigged against it.69

The administration's approach to foreign aid represents an equally radical break with the past. The drastic cuts to foreign assistance programs and the proposed shuttering of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) are justified by the simple, transactional metric articulated by Secretary of State Marco Rubio: "Does it make America safer, stronger or more prosperous?".3 If a program cannot provide an immediate and obvious affirmative answer to this question, its funding is deemed illegitimate. This approach explicitly rejects the foundational argument of "enlightened self-interest"—the idea that investing in global health, stability, and economic development creates a more secure and prosperous world that ultimately benefits the United States in the long term.3 Instead, aid is seen as a direct transfer of wealth from American taxpayers to foreigners, a subsidy for "free-riders" that must be curtailed in the name of putting America first.6

While these policies are justified by a powerful and politically resonant ideological framework, their practical application has significant and often unintended economic consequences. The stated goal of tariffs is to protect American jobs and industries, but expert analysis suggests a more complex and potentially counterproductive reality. The imposition of broad tariffs creates massive uncertainty for businesses, which can deter investment and disrupt supply chains. It also inevitably invites retaliation from other countries, which can inflict targeted harm on American export industries, such as agriculture, harming the very heartland constituencies the policy is meant to protect.71 Similarly, the abrupt and deep cuts to foreign aid, as argued by publications like The Economist, risk making the world poorer, less stable, and more susceptible to humanitarian crises and conflict.3 This instability does not remain contained; it ultimately harms American economic interests by shrinking potential markets for U.S. goods and creating global crises that often require far more costly military and humanitarian interventions later on.3 The "America First" economic framework prioritizes the immediate, visible, and politically satisfying "win"—imposing a tariff, cutting a check to a foreign government—over the less visible, more complex, and long-term benefits of an open and stable global economic system. This can lead to policies that are popular with a domestic base in the short term but prove to be economically and strategically counterproductive for the nation in the long run.

Chapter 10: A World Remade: Regional Priorities and Consequences

The application of the "America First" doctrine to the world's key geopolitical regions has resulted in a dramatic and often jarring reordering of U.S. priorities, alliances, and strategies. The administration's worldview, with its emphasis on great power competition, transactional relationships, and a retreat from "endless wars," has produced a foreign policy that looks radically different from that of its predecessors. This chapter will examine how the doctrine is being applied in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, and assess the profound consequences of this strategic realignment.

In Asia, the administration's entire foreign policy has been increasingly subordinated to the singular goal of confronting and competing with the People's Republic of China. This "China Pivot" is the logical outcome of the worldview articulated by figures like John Ratcliffe, who sees China as an existential threat to American freedom and global democracy.33 This justifies a consistently hawkish stance, including strong political and military support for Taiwan, which is seen as a frontline state in the ideological and strategic struggle against Beijing.26 It also drives intense pressure on allies in the region, from Japan and South Korea to India and the Philippines, to align more closely with the United States against China.37 The competition is framed in all-encompassing terms, spanning military, economic, and technological domains, and is the primary organizing principle of U.S. policy in the Indo-Pacific.

In Europe, the administration's policy is defined by its approach to the "Russian Question." Influenced by the non-interventionist and national conservative views of figures like Tulsi Gabbard and JD Vance, the administration seeks a "reset" with Russia.28 This policy is justified by the belief that Russia is not the primary strategic threat to the United States, that the eastward expansion of NATO after the Cold War was a provocative mistake, and that a negotiated settlement to the war in Ukraine is essential to free up American resources for the more critical confrontation with China.14 This has led to proposals that Ukraine should cede territory in exchange for peace, a position that fundamentally challenges the post-war principle of the inviolability of national borders.27 The administration's relationship with its European allies is transactional and often strained, defined by demands for increased defense spending and a general skepticism toward the value of the transatlantic security partnership.27

In the Middle East, the "America First" doctrine manifests as a policy of transactional peacemaking and hardline confrontation. The administration celebrates diplomatic achievements like the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations, as signature successes.6 These deals are lauded because they were achieved without costly American military entanglements and were based on a realist calculation of shared strategic interests—namely, the formation of a regional coalition to counter Iran—rather than on attempts to resolve the intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict.6 The administration's staunchly pro-Israel stance is justified both by the civilizational worldview of ideologues like Pete Hegseth, who sees Israel as a fellow crusader state, and by the hard-nosed strategic calculations of hawks like Marco Rubio, who view Israel as a critical asset in the broader confrontation with Iran.42

The cumulative effect of these regional policies represents the most profound break with the post-World War II international order. As the historian Margaret MacMillan has argued, the administration's approach signals a potential "normalization of conquest".75 By suggesting that Ukraine should cede territory to end a war started by an aggressor, the administration is implicitly accepting a world where powerful nations can redraw international borders by force.27 This aligns perfectly with the postliberal vision of a new global order divided into Great Power "spheres of influence".21 In this new world, the United States would focus on dominating its own sphere—the Americas, under a newly assertive and "hardline" version of the Monroe Doctrine—while tacitly conceding other spheres of influence to rivals like Russia and China.21 This marks a return to a 19th-century balance-of-power model, a world ordered not by rules, norms, and trust, but by fear and the raw application of power. It is a world where, as the ancient dictum goes, "the powerful do what they will, while the weak suffer what they must"—the very world that the architects of the post-war liberal order had so desperately sought to escape.1

Conclusion: The Enduring Legacy of "America First"

The "America First" foreign policy doctrine is not a temporary aberration or a collection of impulsive decisions, but a coherent and deeply ideological project aimed at fundamentally reshaping America's role in the world. This report has demonstrated that the doctrine is animated by a potent synthesis of distinct but overlapping worldviews—the non-interventionism of paleoconservatism, the civilizational critique of the postliberal right, the transactional calculus of hawkish realism, the anti-war sentiment of non-interventionism, and the Manichean zeal of Christian nationalism. Despite their different points of emphasis, these ideological strains are united by a shared and profound rejection of the liberal internationalist consensus that guided American statecraft for over seven decades. They are bound together by a fervent belief in the absolute primacy of national sovereignty, a deep-seated skepticism of multilateralism, and a transactional, often zero-sum, view of global politics.

This analysis has sought to provide a deep and nuanced answer to the core questions of "why" and "how" this transformation in American foreign policy is occurring. The "why" is rooted in a powerful and politically resonant narrative of national decline and elite failure. The proponents of "America First" argue that the post-war model of "enlightened self-interest" has been a disaster for the American people. In their view, it has enriched a detached "globalist" elite, hollowed out the nation's industrial base through unfair trade deals, entangled the country in costly and unwinnable "endless wars," and eroded its traditional cultural cohesion through mass immigration and multiculturalism. "America First" is therefore presented not as a mere policy alternative, but as a necessary and deeply moral corrective to this perceived civilizational decay. It is a promise to restore a lost greatness by putting the interests of the American nation and its people before all other considerations.

The "how" of the "America First" doctrine flows directly from this diagnosis. The ideological framework justifies a radical and disruptive policy toolkit designed to dismantle the structures of the old order and reclaim American sovereignty. This includes withdrawing from international agreements and organizations like the Paris Agreement and the WHO to break free from the constraints of "globalist" governance; imposing broad-based tariffs to fight for economic "reciprocity" and protect domestic industry; drastically cutting foreign aid to stop subsidizing "free-riding" allies and international bureaucracies; and fundamentally reorienting alliances based on transactional interests and shared cultural affinities rather than on a common commitment to liberal democracy. Each policy action is a deliberate step away from the post-war model and a step toward a world where the United States acts as an unbound, sovereign power, pursuing its own narrowly defined interests.

The long-term implications of this ideological shift are profound and potentially irreversible. By deliberately withdrawing from and actively undermining the institutional and normative framework it once painstakingly built, the United States under the "America First" doctrine is not simply retreating from the world stage. It is actively reshaping the international system itself, transforming it into a more competitive, fragmented, and unpredictable arena. The doctrine's rejection of "enlightened self-interest" in favor of a narrow, transactional nationalism signals to both allies and adversaries that the era of American-underwritten global public goods is over. This encourages a world where every nation is compelled to put its own interests first, leading to a more dangerous and unstable environment of balance-of-power politics. The ultimate legacy of "America First" may be the creation of a world that more closely resembles the 19th century than the 21st—a world where hard power is supreme, where spheres of influence replace international law, and where, as its intellectual critics have warned, "the powerful do what they will, while the weak suffer what they must".1 This is the world that the "America First" doctrine, in both its theory and its practice, is striving to bring into being.

Sources des citations

1. The Meaning of 'America First' - Kenyon Alumni Magazine, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://bulletin.kenyon.edu/article/the-meaning-of-america-first/
2. en.wikipedia.org, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest#:~:text=Enlightened%20self%2Dinterest%20is%20a,serve%20their%20own%20self%2Dinterest.
3. By cutting off US Aid.docx
4. The Lost Generation in American Foreign Policy - RAND, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PEA200/PEA232-1/RAND_PEA232-1.pdf
5. America First Foreign Policy Principles in Practice | Commentary | Security, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/20220404-america-first-foreign-policy-principles-in-practice
6. Establish an America First Foreign Policy - The America First Agenda, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://agenda.americafirstpolicy.com/strengthen-leadership/establish-an-america-first-foreign-policy
7. Between Globalism and America First: The Ambiguous Resonance of Individualist Values in Current U.S. Foreign Policy - ScholarWorks@Arcadia, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://scholarworks.arcadia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1049&context=agsjournal
8. Pat Buchanan - Wikipedia, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan
9. A Republic, Not an Empire - Wikipedia, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Republic,_Not_an_Empire
10. Patrick Buchanan and American Foreign Policy, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://americanmind.org/salvo/patrick-buchanan-and-american-foreign-policy/
11. Honor Patrick J. Buchanan with Presidential Medal of Freedom - - ITR Foundation, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://itrfoundation.org/honor-patrick-j-buchanan-with-presidential-medal-of-freedom/
12. Pat Buchanan | Biography & Facts - Britannica, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Patrick-J-Buchanan
13. American Crusade - Wikipedia, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Crusade
14. Political positions of JD Vance - Wikipedia, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_JD_Vance
15. Vile chats give insight into radicalization of right-wing culture - R Street Institute, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/vile-chats-give-insight-into-radicalization-of-right-wing-culture/
16. New Right - Wikipedia, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Right
17. What to know about John Bolton, the former Trump adviser under indictment, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/10/17/john-bolton-what-to-know/
18. Ex-Trump adviser John Bolton indicted on charges of mishandling classified information, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/16/john-bolton-indictment-trump
19. Ex-Trump national security adviser Bolton charged with storing and sharing classified information, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/john-bolton-indictment-classified-information-1e21da0591d1195fbf58c0df28d57c9f
20. Former Trump aide John Bolton indicted over handling of classified material, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/10/16/bolton-indicted-trump-classified-documents/
21. Welcome to a postliberal U.S.A. - Atlantische Commissie, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.atlcom.nl/magazine/welcome-to-a-postliberal-u-s-a/
22. Postliberalism - Wikipedia, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postliberalism
23. The Post-Liberal Right: The Good, the Bad, and the Perplexing - Public Discourse, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/03/60593/
24. Post-Liberalism in Conversation: Liberalism and its fate - GW Calendar, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://calendar.gwu.edu/event/post-liberalism-in-conversation-liberalism-and-its-fate
25. Why Washington's anti-PMF moves are testing the Iraq partnership - Atlantic Council, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/why-washingtons-anti-pmf-moves-are-testing-the-iraq-partnership/
26. Political positions of Marco Rubio - Wikipedia, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Marco_Rubio
27. Foreign policy of the second Trump administration - Wikipedia, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_second_Trump_administration
28. J.D. Vance's foreign policy: When restraint meets culture war | ECFR, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://ecfr.eu/article/j-d-vances-foreign-policy-when-restraint-meets-culture-war/
29. 2025 JD Vance speech at the Munich Security Conference - Wikipedia, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_JD_Vance_speech_at_the_Munich_Security_Conference
30. JD Vance's Munich speech laid bare the collapse of the transatlantic alliance | Europe, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/15/jd-vance-munich-speech-laid-bare-collapse-transatlantic-alliance-us-europe
31. John Ratcliffe on Russia and Ukraine, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/john-ratcliffe-russia-and-ukraine
32. The Cabinet - The White House, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/the-cabinet/
33. John Ratcliffe | Nomination Bio - America First Policy Institute, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/america-first-nomination-john-ratcliffe
34. John Ratcliffe - Wikipedia, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ratcliffe
35. CCP Political Warfare - House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/CCP-Report-10.24.24.pdf
36. How Michael Waltz might guide White House foreign policy - Good Authority, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://goodauthority.org/news/how-michael-waltz-might-guide-white-house-foreign-policy/
37. en.wikipedia.org, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Waltz#:~:text=He%20was%20chair%20of%20the,the%20U.S.%20and%20the%20West.
38. Mike Waltz - Wikipedia, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Waltz
39. Political positions of Tulsi Gabbard - Wikipedia, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Tulsi_Gabbard
40. Tulsi Gabbard's Foreign Policy, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/election2020/candidate-tracker/tulsi-gabbard
41. Trump Pentagon pick Pete Hegseth's books foreground anti-Muslim rhetoric - The Guardian, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/28/pete-hegseth-trump-anti-muslim-book
42. en.wikipedia.org, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Marco_Rubio#:~:text=Marco%20Rubio%20has%20been%20a,favoring%20strong%20U.S.%2DIsrael%20relations.
43. Marco Rubio warns Israel not to annex West Bank after Knesset vote in favour, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/23/marco-rubio-warning-israel-west-bank-donald-trump
44. JD Vance criticizes Israel's parliament vote on West Bank annexation, says the move was an 'insult' - The Economic Times, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/world-news/jd-vance-criticizes-israels-parliament-vote-on-west-bank-annexation-says-the-move-was-an-insult/articleshow/124761575.cms
45. WATCH: Vance tells Europe immigration most 'urgent' issue, says voters don't want 'floodgates' open - PBS, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-vance-tells-europe-immigration-most-urgent-issue-says-voters-dont-want-floodgates-open
46. ‘Hogwash’ that Israel is a US client state, says Netanyahu, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/22/netanyahu-calls-israel-client-state-us-claim-hogwash
47. “America Won't Be a Puppet”– JD Vance Confronts Netanyahu in Tense Meeting - YouTube, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTkh4PINtzk
48. Vance says Trump's policy rejects Israeli annexation of West Bank - Yahoo News UK, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://uk.news.yahoo.com/vance-says-trumps-policy-rejects-122314066.html
49. Ambassador Mike Waltz - United States Mission to the United Nations, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://usun.usmission.gov/ambassador-michael-waltz/
50. Virtual Remarks by Ambassador Mike Waltz at the Grand Strategy Summit Hosted by the Richard Nixon Foundation, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://usun.usmission.gov/virtual-remarks-by-ambassador-mike-waltz-at-the-grand-strategy-summit-hosted-by-the-richard-nixon-foundation/
51. Senator Vance Slams U.S. Foreign Policy Establishment For Decades of Failure - YouTube, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFD4D47JUd0
52. U.S. National Security Advisors Talk Top Foreign Policy Challenges, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.usip.org/publications/2025/01/us-national-security-advisors-talk-top-foreign-policy-challenges
53. A First Look at the Second Trump Administration's National Security and Foreign Policy, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.bhfs.com/insight/a-first-look-at-the-second-trump-administration-s-national-security-and-foreign-policy/
54. China the 'greatest threat to democracy and freedom', US spy chief warns - The Guardian, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/03/china-beijing-america-democracy-freedom
55. “China is National Security Threat No. 1" to the United States – and to Israel? | INSS, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.inss.org.il/publication/china-threat/
56. Director of the CIA, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.cia.gov/about/director-of-cia/
57. Tulsi Gabbard - Wikipedia, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard
58. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard Build, Don't Bomb: A New American Foreign Policy, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKDuLdPFyto
59. Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence: A Non-Interventionist Pivot?, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.nextcenturyfoundation.org/tulsi-gabbard-as-director-of-national-intelligence-a-non-interventionist-pivot/
60. Tulsi Gabbard vs. the War Party - Responsible Statecraft, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://responsiblestatecraft.org/tulsi-gabbard-confirmation/
61. Political positions of Pete Hegseth - Wikipedia, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Pete_Hegseth
62. Trump Pentagon pick attacks UN and Nato and urges US to ignore Geneva conventions, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/25/pete-hegseth-book-attacks-nato-alliances
63. Hegseth Tells NATO Hard Power Provides Deterrence, Defense - War.gov, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4066810/hegseth-tells-nato-hard-power-provides-deterrence-defense/
64. U.S. kills five on alleged drug boats in Pacific, widening Trump's campaign, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/10/22/us-strike-pacific-colombia-drug-boat/
65. United States and the Paris Agreement - Wikipedia, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Paris_Agreement
66. The Trump Administration's Retreat From Global Climate Leadership, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-trump-administrations-retreat-from-global-climate-leadership/
67. US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and from the WHO - European Parliament, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2025/767230/EPRS_ATA(2025)767230_EN.pdf
68. Trump's 'America First' foreign policy will accelerate China's push for global leadership, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/11/trumps-america-first-foreign-policy-will-accelerate-chinas-push-global-leadership
69. Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Declares National Emergency to Increase our Competitive Edge, Protect our Sovereignty, and Strengthen our National and Economic Security - The White House, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-declares-national-emergency-to-increase-our-competitive-edge-protect-our-sovereignty-and-strengthen-our-national-and-economic-security/
70. U.S. Tariff Policy: Overview - Congress.gov, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11030
71. Confused by the U.S. economy? You're not alone - capradio.org, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://www.capradio.org/news/npr/story?storyid=nx-s1-5581578
72. The Foreign Affairs Interview | Foreign Affairs Magazine, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://foreignaffairsmagazine.podbean.com/
73. The Foreign Affairs Interview - Apple Podcasts, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://podcasts.apple.com/gr/podcast/the-foreign-affairs-interview/id1623855270
74. Foreign policy of the first Trump administration - Wikipedia, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_first_Trump_administration
75. Why Is America Going It Alone?–The Foreign Affairs Interview - Apple Podcasts, consulté le octobre 23, 2025, https://podcasts.apple.com/md/podcast/why-is-america-going-it-alone/id1623855270?i=1000722937395