Proud and Alone: America's Drift in Foreign Policy (US Politics)

Only a year ago, the United States boasted a prospering, growing alliance, unmatched credibility on the world stage, and numerous trade agreements & partners. Only a year ago, being American would not have been met with immediate wariness or hostility in Greenland or Canada. Only a year ago, the United States was the force that countries and people in need alike appealed to for protection against oppression and violence. Now, the US has utilized violence to force the hand of foreign bodies and lower the hands of demonstrators. It is getting condemned by its own allies for its “bullying” and sudden withdrawals from what were once bedrock agreements on trade, science, and climate change. Our actions have been guided by a new doctrine, one that can be best described as self-seeking, opportunistic, and unchecked.

What changed?

Our administration changed, and we’ve become proud, showing little regard for cooperation, particularly in organizations or agreements that can be associated with liberal ideas; that much has been clear since the United States’ departure from both the International Panel on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement under Trump’s leadership.

These developments aren’t limited to climate change, however: the US has withdrawn from organizations we’ve been vital to the existence of that encompass issues broadly ranging from health to human rights, to education, such as the World Health Organization (the US becoming the first country in WHO history to leave), the UN Human Rights Council, and UNESCO. The reasons cited? Political bias and “need for reform”; the explanations have been criticized by experts as regressive and harmful to global advancement in regard to disease prevention and science cooperation.  These decisions to leave what were once considered bedrock agreements demonstrate political bias: not in the organizations, but in the administration’s selections.

To this administration, initiatives well-rooted in science may as well be based on folklore if they require collective action and/or address an issue Democrats campaign on. These selectively isolationist actions have regrettably pushed our own allies to respond in kind: with countries like the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, and France refusing to join Trump’s “Board of Peace” for Gaza, although particular reasons range, with some citing worries of an attempt to replace the UN.

It has been clear that with a change of attitude comes a change of friends; today’s America acts alone. The United States' outlook towards its allies, its enemies, and those whom we have yet to designate as either is now more brazen than ever. For one, Ukraine, a country that the US has been a staunch and leading supporter of since the outbreak of Russia’s invasion, has become a grey ground for foreign policy, with frequent fluctuations correlating with the President’s mood and the willingness of both sides to follow his agenda. Moreover, even the closest allies of the US and members of NATO seem to appear on this administration’s radar: Denmark, for example, has been under relentless fire for its resistance to making a “Greenland deal” that would likely entail territorial concessions and resource obligations. One can imagine that with such demands, the situation has escalated to a point that some of our European allies have deemed it necessary to contribute troops to protect Greenland: to protect Greenland from what was once Western Europe’s closest friend & financier since the Marshall Plan and the very founder of the defense alliance it has boasted its security from since 1949.

American foreign policy has undergone an upheaval. The benefits are debatable, and experts are grim about future scientific cooperation or advancement. The administration could effectively argue that it has put “America first,” considering it put the world last; its policy of opportunism and pride, however, could put the US and global future at risk.

As voters approach upcoming elections, they confront a fundamental choice about the country’s role in the world. Should the United States pursue a more nationalist, unilateral path that prioritizes domestic autonomy and power projection? Or should it continue to act as a multilateral leader, committed to global cooperation and collective problem solving? The answer will shape not only America’s future, but the trajectory of the international order itself.