Donald Trump’s return to the White House will be the assured beginning of change for the United States. Many separate concerns related to domestic matters will be affected by an emboldened and strengthened Republican Party, using the Election Day victory to expand its ideology across the nation. The campaign trail for the last few months was particularly dominated by debates and worries over the future of civil liberties and government policies, but there is one key misconception among many others that Republicans have been falsely associated with — isolationism.
The Democratic campaign made sure to emphasize how foreign policy issues rely on the image of the United States as an active participant in global affairs. Democrats pushed the idea that the nation should not be a complicit bystander and argued with vigor that it should maintain its position as a global superpower by preserving defense commitments in Europe and Asia, particularly in the Middle East. This argument was presented to counter the perceptions about a second Trump presidency equaling the end of the United States’ global presence and a turn toward isolation, meaning that the United States would, from then on, be only concerned with internal matters.
It is way too early to determine the ultimate cause for the overwhelming defeat of the Democrats — the hindsight necessary to put all the pieces together will only develop itself in future years with more analysis. Nevertheless, it is key to note that misperceptions about Trump’s campaign promises may have had a crucial impact on this outcome, and right now, it is important to understand what is truly ahead for the United States by paying attention to what has been and is being said.
When it comes to policy advice, one enormous source of insight into the Republican Party’s mindset is undeniably Project 2025. The movement’s document primarily focuses on advised changes to domestic affairs, but the foreign policy goals under the “Department of State” section emphasize the need for the Department to become more robust and more proactive through what has so far been described as “recalibrations” within the Department itself. The document similarly espouses the need to “respond vigorously to the Chinese threat” and “re-engage with Middle Eastern and North African nations and not abandon the region” — these points highlight the fact that the United States is not going to leave behind its strategic military presence in geopolitically active regions.
Another important point to mention is the various responses the Republican victory generated across leaders of nations and international organizations. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu posted a message on Nov. 6, commenting that Trump’s reelection is “a huge victory” and that his “historic return to the White House offers a new beginning for America and a powerful recommitment to the great alliance between Israel and America.” This is not a surprise considering Trump’s stance on Middle Eastern affairs during his first term and it is obvious that during his second term, he will emphasize providing greater aid and diplomatic protection to Israel, deepening the United States’ strategic presence in the region through direct political support. Similarly, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte was quick to post on social media that he is expecting continued cooperation with the United States, stating that “His leadership will again be key to keeping our Alliance strong. I look forward to working with him again to advance peace through strength through #NATO.” Europe and the Middle East are two regions where United States presence is vital for geopolitical balances, despite renewed calls, especially in the European Union, to decouple from the United States defense umbrella. The current mood among leaders is a hopeful expectation of the existing diplomatic trajectory with small changes by Republicans throughout overall policy choices.
One final note to reconsider the isolationism accusation against Trump is basic history and political strategy — the United States cannot afford to simply disconnect itself from the world and go back to its position from the 1920s, when the country was only concerned with the safety of its immediate surroundings. The expected Republican stance, likely to be focused against China and Iran, requires active collaboration with international allies just as much as the Democrat stance against Russia and Belarus requires it now. That is why it is all the more misleading to believe that the United States will simply relinquish its position and espouse an isolationist doctrine.
All things considered, no one in their right mind should expect the United States to embrace isolationism as a diplomatic policy once Trump begins his second term. Instead, we need to concentrate on what the role of the United States is as a superpower in relation to all the current and potential conflicts it can be associated with. As far as its impact on the recent election is concerned, foreign policy may have been overtaken by domestic civil rights issues this year, but the strategic priorities of the second Trump administration will likely have lasting effects on geopolitics that will go beyond election cycles. Instead of clinging on to the isolationism accusation, we must, therefore, focus on what those effects as well as United States involvement may look like and think about our collective future accordingly.
Deniz Gulay is a sophomore double-majoring in history and Russian.
Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.