The Trump administration's greatest achievements have been in foreign policy. Even if the practice of “America First” resulted more from presidential gut instinct than bureaucratic mastery, it was the appropriate response to America's shrinking scope for geopolitical mistakes: initiate a withdrawal from Afghanistan; Avoid wasting resources and attention on new conflicts in the periphery. punish free-riding allies; focus on competition with China; and seek deals with America's traditional adversaries. Donald Trump was the first president since Jimmy Carter not to involve the United States in a new foreign conflict.

Some “America First” policies survived Trump’s first term. President Joe Biden implemented our long-overdue withdrawal from Afghanistan. The focus remained on China. Yet just six months after Kabul's evacuation, his government vigorously engaged in what has become a proxy war of attrition over Ukraine, reportedly ignoring diplomatic opportunities that could have shortened the conflict. It continues with unwarranted costs to the Ukrainians, the U.S. Treasury and arsenal, and the prospects for strategic stability. Combined with the incoherent and destructive efforts to address the crisis in the Levant, the White House has been shown to be at the mercy of events and unable to set priorities. Administration officials insisted they could “walk and chew gum at the same time,” but they only showed that fiasco is easy when you are strategically blindfolded.

America First, Can It Last?

In the Republican Party, “America First” became a slogan. Each candidate in the primary field used the phrase to make their foreign policy preferences known. The failure of these challengers and President Trump's decision to select JD Vance as his running mate suggest that there is a strong constituency abandoning the old interventionist Republican foreign policy consensus.

Still, it remains uncertain whether the “America First” intuition of unilateral moderation can make the leap from sentiment to tradition. Some conservative analysts want to restore George W. Bush's foreign policy, only this time with the window dressing of “America First.” But failing to adhere to the Democratic Party's imperial definition of U.S. interests would lead to disaster: it would fail to win the loyalty of the GOP base at the ballot box; Internationally, it would overuse America's scarce resources on hotspots in which it has little direct stake. Republicans need an “America First” foreign policy platform, not just a slogan.

The foundation of this platform should be the acceptance of compromises: between domestic and foreign and between competing international priorities. In this century, the United States is not powerful enough to keep the Republic free and prosperous while ensuring regional order in Europe, the Middle East and Asia. The America First platform recognizes that America is at risk of physical harm from conflict over distant issues, from financial and social harm caused by the use of its blood and treasure in voluntary wars, and from the mass violation of its borders Migrant flows are at risk from outlaws.

America First focuses scarce resources on international commitments sufficient to protect America and avoids taking risks on luxury goals remotely related to the security needs of the American people. It pays attention to the balance of power in Europe and Asia, but rejects the de facto force heuristic of the foreign policy elite: a reflexive defense of the global status quo. This approach will exhaust us and put us in a weaker position to defend America when it really matters. Geographical isolation and nuclear weapons provide us with enormous protection against failure in Eurasia. We have the privilege to wait – and we should use it.

Foreign policy sufficiency begins in the Western Hemisphere. The Biden-era surge in illegal immigration has disrupted daily life across the country, increased our vulnerability to terrorist attacks, and discredited legal pathways to residency. The administration viewed this as a distraction and was slow to respond as the issue threatened Vice President Harris's electoral prospects. America First defines the border as a key national security priority – one that requires new deterrence measures and completion of the wall.

America First emphasizes that the absence of geopolitical rivalry in America is critical to U.S. security and international freedom of action. Geopolitical rivals now have greater resources to advance in the Western Hemisphere and America's forward-looking policies in post-Soviet Europe and the Indo-Pacific Create incentives for this. The America First platform should restore the Monroe Doctrine as the irrefutable red line of U.S. security and return it to its worthy roots as a statement of defense and diplomacy rather than a license for military intervention. The doctrine is a shield, not a lance. In the coming century we will need it as a signal, negotiation and deterrent to defend the Republic.

Putting America first means ending our costly pursuit of luxury destinations in the Middle East. America's shrinking scope for geopolitical error means that continued intense engagement there directly parallels more important priorities in Asia and conserving national resources for the turbulent century ahead. The United States has three important but non-vital interests in the Middle East: ensuring that no local or external power dominates the region, stabilizing its energy flows and preventing terrorist attacks on Americans. For these purposes, a small regional air and naval contingent with long-range strike capabilities is sufficient. Our vulnerable ground operations in Iraq and Syria should be withdrawn. The US has an interest in blocking Iranian ambitions, but not to the point of war with Tehran. For balance, one should rely on the powerful network of partnerships cemented by the Abraham Accords. Successful deprioritization of the Middle East requires flexibility in adapting to current conditions. Local partners such as Israel and Saudi Arabia should remain partners and not become Article 5 allies. They should not have the impression of knee-jerk American support. If they pursue policies that harm U.S. interests, we should not shy away from imposing costs on them.

The Ukraine factor

In Ukraine it is time for conversations, not ideological desires. The war has stalled and can only be ended or interrupted through negotiations. The Biden administration's policy of sending weapons without making them dependent on Ukraine's willingness to negotiate subordinates US interests to those of President Zelensky. The continuation of the war and its expansion to Russia harbor the ongoing risk of nuclear escalation, from which the American homeland is not immune. It has significantly damaged the prospects for a sustainable European solution and deepened Europe's dependence on the US at a time when our greatest geopolitical challenges lie in Asia. It has also strengthened the Sino-Russian partnership — the international grouping with the greatest ability to threaten U.S. interests — into a more coherent alliance.

The U.S. interest in ending the war rather than resuming it far outweighs its interests in the final location of the Russian-Ukrainian border or in incurring further costs to Russia. America First draws the cautious conclusion. With its significant military and economic influence, the United States should seek to engage combatants and key European states in sustained talks on a ceasefire and final status issues such as the geopolitical alignment and reconstruction of Ukraine. The relative weakness of U.S. interests in the issues that sparked the war places great emphasis on the sufficiency of U.S. objectives. An America First negotiating position should be prepared to accept an agreement modeled on the March 2022 Istanbul Communiqué: Ukraine's neutrality, commitments against Ukraine's NATO membership, limits on Ukraine's military ties with the West, and a formula of multilateral security guarantees for the Ukraine.

The war in Ukraine also obscures a crucial fact: the major problem of European security has now been resolved from the standpoint of vital US interests. Today no country can hope for European hegemony – not even Russia with its pre-war strength. The European core has nuclear weapons and an economy six times larger than Russia's. It is absurd that the Americans would risk a two-front war when one of the fronts can be controlled by the Europeans. Given the increasing security demands in Asia, the US should force Europe to take the reins. The America First platform should increase pressure for increased European security spending and convene discussions on the creation of a Europeanized regional security architecture.

The path there leads through France, the only European state that has the resources, self-confidence and ambition to organize and lead Europe as a third pole. The next GOP president should renew the old Franco-American partnership as a bridgehead for the transition of European security responsibility from American to European leadership. The transition should be cooperative and gradual, working towards an end state in which Europe can secure itself against all threats except all-out great power war. To consolidate this process, the US should veto further NATO expansion. The nuclear umbrella and intelligence sharing should remain in place for now, but the US should consider withdrawing from NATO's unified command structure to promote European autonomy. American foreign policy will be more disciplined, transatlantic relations more sophisticated, and the international order more resilient when the big questions of European security are answered by Europeans themselves.

The Asian Challenge

The rise of China is America's most challenging major strategic problem, but it is neither insoluble nor an emergency. Although China is a strong technological competitor and espionage threat, it is far from politically subjugating or conquering Asia: it is surrounded by wealthy, confident and militarily capable states. The fact that nuclear weapons were invented in Asia at the height of American power gives the status quo a particular persistence. And the weight of China's accumulation of chronic economic problems will, in the long run, limit the resources the country can devote to geopolitical gains. All in all, China is and remains a superpower. The “America First” acceptance criterion therefore works against attempts to overthrow its regime or restore US military supremacy in Asia. These goals are unfeasible and pursuing them would create serious tensions that endanger the American people.