The Illusion of American Isolation: A Deep Dive into the Historical Roots of Trump's Foreign Policy

News Analysis

Foreign Affairs magazine, specializing in international affairs, published a lengthy analytical article by political researcher and academic at the Brookings Institute, Michael O'Hanlon, titled: "The Illusion of American Isolation: A Reading into the Roots of Trump's Foreign Policy." The article is based on the theses of his new book: Dare to Do Great Things: American Defense Strategy Since the American Revolution (1776), where the author seeks to deconstruct the common image presented of US President Donald Trump's policies, particularly his description as an "isolationist" leader who returns the United States to 19th-century traditions.

This description, which was popular in the analyses of a large number of commentators and media outlets, is primarily based on Trump's sharp rhetoric towards allies, his explicit nationalist tendencies, and his hardline stances on immigration and international trade. However, O'Hanlon believes that this classification, despite its media appeal, lacks historical accuracy and does not stand up to a careful reading of the trajectory of American foreign policy, nor even to an examination of Trump's own behavior during his terms in office.

Trump, according to the author, does not seek to reduce the American role in the world or retreat within national borders, as much as he works to redefine this role based on the logic of maximizing national power, and reordering the costs of external commitments to serve a narrow conception of American interest. From this perspective, the disagreement is not about engagement or withdrawal, but about how and why.

O'Hanlon attributes this trend to deep-rooted traditions in American political history, extending to presidents such as James Monroe (the fifth president), Andrew Jackson (the seventh president), James Polk (the eleventh president), William McKinley (the 25th president), and Theodore Roosevelt (the 26th president). These, although their eras and contexts differed, were not isolationists in the classical sense, but rather pursued expansionist and aggressive policies, stemming from a fundamental conviction that the security of the United States is not achieved by retreat, but by initiative and imposing facts. Hence, the similarity between Trump and these figures does not lie in the desire for isolation, but in the insistence on maximizing American influence even if it comes at the expense of international consensus or prevailing norms.

The author reminds us that the United States, since its inception, has not been a self-contained nation. It engaged in early military and political confrontations, from the "quasi-war" with France in the late eighteenth century, to its campaigns against Mediterranean pirates, to westward expansion at the expense of indigenous peoples and Mexico. This historical record reveals that what is called "American isolationism" was only a short-lived exception in the 1920s and 1930s, which quickly collapsed with the outbreak of World War II.

In the nineteenth century, the United States adopted an expansionist strategy relying on a limited but highly efficient force, which allowed it to transform from a nascent coastal state into a sprawling continental power. This expansion was not the result of a peaceful tendency, but rather the product of precise calculations of power and interest. This path culminated in the American-Mexican War (1846-1848), which is considered one of the most daring and controversial territorial expansions in modern history.

By the end of the nineteenth century, American ambition shifted from land to sea, and from region to the world. The war with Spain, the building of the naval fleet, and the rise of naval strategic thought theorized by Alfred Mahan, established a growing American role in international politics. Despite Washington's attempts to avoid involvement in European conflicts, it found itself engaged in the First and Second World Wars, which put a definitive end to any illusion of permanent isolation.

In this historical context, Trump's policies in his second term appear to be an extension of this tradition, not a departure from it. Since his return to the White House in 2025, he has reaffirmed commitment to NATO, engaged directly in international conflict issues, used military force against Iran, and taken escalatory steps in Latin America. He also pushed for increased defense spending, without actually dismantling any existing strategic alliance, despite his confrontational nationalist rhetoric.

It is true that Trump criticizes the liberal international order, and sometimes undermines the spirit of partnership with allies through tariffs and unilateral policies, but these practices do not amount to adopting an isolationist strategy. Rather, they reflect a reductionist conception of national security, linking influence to hard power more than relying on multilateral agreements.

O'Hanlon warns that the use of American history to justify these policies is often done with selective reading, ignoring that the greatest American successes in the twentieth century were the result of combining power with alliance building and shaping a stable international order after World War II. History, he emphasizes, does not offer ready-made recipes, but lessons and warnings. What succeeded in the era of continental expansion or imperial competition may today lead to dangerous political isolation if not accompanied by a participatory vision that accommodates the complexities of the contemporary international system.

In conclusion, Trump cannot be understood as a historical exception or an anomalous phenomenon from the American trajectory. In the essence of his vision for national security, he is the heir to a long tradition that prioritizes power over partnership. However, history itself shows that this approach, if not tempered by broader considerations, may achieve quick gains, but it carries serious risks for the stability of the international order, and for the position of the United States itself in the long run.