An Empire Born: A Different Reading of the United States in its 250th Year

Washington's Message

Washington – Said Arikat – 7/5/2026

Opinion Piece

On Saturday, July 4, the United States celebrated its 250th anniversary, in a scene dominated by national celebration and a display of military, technological, and economic power that has made it the most influential nation in the world. The official discourse presented the occasion as the culmination of two and a half centuries of democratic success, constitutional stability, and global leadership, affirming the image of the United States as a model of freedom and a leader of the international order.

However, this celebratory narrative conceals another face of American history, a face no less important than the story of democracy and the constitution, and perhaps one that explains a large part of the United States' rise to its current position. There is a growing historical interpretation that views the United States not as having transformed into an empire after World War II or at the end of the 19th century, but rather as having been born an empire since its declaration of independence in 1776. According to this approach, expansion, land acquisition, subjugation of indigenous peoples, and then extending influence beyond its borders were not separate stages in the nation's history, but rather the project upon which the republic was founded from its inception.

From this perspective, American history is not viewed solely as a continuous march towards freedom, but also as a history of building an expansionist power that used law, institutions, the military, and the economy to solidify its influence within the American continent and then globally. Thus, the question posed on the 250th anniversary is not only how the United States became the greatest power in the world, but also: Was this rise the fruit of an exceptional democratic model, or the result of an imperial project that accompanied the nation since its birth?

This interpretation starts from the premise that expansion was not an accidental outcome of the American state-building, but rather the foundation upon which the state itself was built. Since independence, the new government declared its sovereignty over vast areas inhabited by indigenous peoples and considered geographical expansion part of its national mission. To achieve this, it utilized constitutional institutions, federal laws, and the military, making the expansion of the state's territory a permanent political goal, not merely a response to changing historical circumstances.

This argument also explains why the United States adheres to what is known as "American exceptionalism," i.e., the belief that it differs from European empires because it emerged from a revolution against colonialism and championed the slogans of freedom and self-determination. However, many historians believe that empires are not defined solely by possessing colonies, but by their ability to impose unequal power and control relations. From this perspective, the United States has practiced imperial behavior since its inception, even if it refused to use that description.

Independence did not end the imperial system managed by Britain, but rather shifted the center of power from London to American political elites. Indigenous peoples were the first to pay the price for this transformation, as they faced a new authority more aggressive in land acquisition and less committed to previous agreements. Wars against tribes, forced displacement policies, and dispossession became official tools for state-building, not marginal events in its history.

In this context, the concept of "settler colonialism" gains special significance, as it explains the nature of the American project. The intention was not merely to control the indigenous population, but to replace them with a new society. Therefore, land became the primary goal, and the presence of indigenous peoples became an obstacle to the settlement project, leading to organized policies of displacement and exclusion, implemented through state institutions, law, and military force.

Moreover, the western frontier (the American West) was not a space of chaos as depicted by traditional narratives, but rather subject to government administration aimed at transforming open lands into private property and integrating them into the American economy. Treaties with indigenous peoples were often used as temporary solutions until they became an impediment to expansion, at which point they were bypassed or abrogated.

With the completion of control over the American continent in the late 19th century, the expansion project did not stop but changed direction. The Spanish-American War of 1898 ushered in the era of global empire, where Washington extended its control over the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam, but presented its intervention as a project to liberate peoples, not occupy them.

However, the war in the Philippines revealed the continuation of the same methods used within the American interior, including extensive military campaigns, scorched-earth policies, concentration camps, and a large number of civilian casualties. The geography changed, but the philosophy of expansion remained the same.

Throughout the 20th century, the American empire evolved from direct control to indirect influence. The need to annex territories no longer existed; instead, hegemony was exercised through military bases, security agreements, economic dominance, influence over governments, and the shaping of international institutions. After World War II, the United States possessed the ability to reshape the global order to serve its interests, without the need to establish a colonial empire in the traditional sense.

During the Cold War, this influence acquired a new ideological justification: confronting communism. In the name of this goal, Washington intervened in the affairs of many countries, contributing to the overthrow of elected governments and supporting authoritarian regimes when it deemed it necessary to protect its strategic interests. Thus, the American empire expanded under the slogans of security and defending the free world.

The collapse of the Soviet Union did not lead to a contraction of this influence; instead, it opened the door to a new phase of unipolar dominance, characterized by the expansion of NATO, the continued American military presence, and the escalation of foreign interventions under the banners of counter-terrorism, protecting international security, and spreading democracy. The political language changed, but the essence of the relationship between power and influence remained constant.

Domestically, these transformations were reflected in the nature of the state itself. The powers of security agencies expanded, electronic surveillance increased, and the presence of military and security institutions in public administration strengthened, leading a number of researchers to argue that the effects of empire are no longer limited to foreign policy but have extended to the internal structure of the American political system.

This interpretation does not deny that the United States has made major contributions to the development of constitutional institutions, the global economy, and scientific innovation, nor does it diminish the importance of the principles upon which it was founded, foremost among them freedom, equality, and the rule of law. However, it emphasizes that these principles coexisted, from the beginning, with an expansionist project that relied on force and dominance to build the state and enhance its international standing.

Therefore, the celebration of 250 years since the founding of the United States opens the door to a deeper historical review that does not merely recount achievements but also pauses at the human and political cost of the expansion project. Understanding the United States as both a democratic state and an empire at the same time may be more capable of explaining the contradictions of its domestic and foreign policy, and of understanding the reasons for the ongoing debate about its role in the world.

The question posed by this historical occasion remains open: Can the United States, as it enters the third quarter-millennium of its existence, redefine its power away from the logic of expansion and dominance, or will the imperial legacy remain one of the essential components of its political identity and global role? The answer to this question will not only determine the future of American policy but will also affect the shape of the international order in the coming decades.