Is there a defining strategy shaping the current administration’s foreign policy? Various labels have been applied—America First, isolationist, transactional, protectionist, and even expansionist. The leader has described their stance as both nationalist and globalist, embracing a paradoxical approach to international relations.
In a recent inaugural address, an emphasis on restraint was highlighted, suggesting success should be measured by the “wars we never get into.” However, the same speech also included bold declarations about reclaiming strategic territories, signaling an assertive global stance.
During the first campaign, there was a strong push to end longstanding military interventions in the Middle East. Yet, recent statements have suggested a more interventionist approach, with plans to exert control over contested regions while displacing current populations.
This evolving stance raises a critical question: Is there a clear doctrine guiding foreign policy? While promises have been made for a new approach, the blend of non-interventionist rhetoric with ambitious geopolitical ambitions presents a complex and ever-shifting strategy. As the world watches, the true essence of this doctrine—whether one of restraint or assertion—continues to unfold.