“America First” doctrine fractures alliances and tests global order

By the time you read this, the United States may be at war with its closest allies or embroiled in a bloody conflict in Minnesota, because the unpredictable tyrant in the White House is unrestrained by reality, respect, or responsibility.

In a political climate defined by maximalist pledges, the “America First” slogan championed by neofascist President Donald Trump continues to resonate with a significant portion of the US electorate, channeling frustrations over trade, immigration and national sovereignty.

However, a chorus of foreign policy experts, allied governments and economic analysts warn that the practical application of this doctrine carries profound and perhaps unintended consequences, straining the diplomatic fabric that has underpinned international stability for decades.

The potential risks are not abstract.

A renewed “America First” foreign policy, as previously enacted and proposed for a future term, explicitly prioritizes unilateral, transactional dealings over multilateral alliances.

This approach has already shown a capacity to exacerbate geopolitical tensions, particularly in sensitive regions.

In the Arctic, renewed overtures toward seizing Greenland, a self-governing Danish territory, were met with widespread resentment in Denmark and deepened European anxieties about U.S. commitment to allied sovereignty.

NATO allies are still feeling betrayed by the feeble and fickle American response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as well as Trump’s arrogance.

In North America, the repeated threat of across-the-board tariffs on Canadian goods—framed as a national security issue during the last administration—tested the endurance of the USMCA, the trilateral trade agreement binding the continent.

That and Trump’s repeated suggestion that he may order a military incursion into Mexico threatens America’s two largest trade partners.

Simultaneously, a retrenchment of U.S. engagement is seen by strategists as creating strategic openings for rival powers.

A posture that withdraws from international institutions or conditions security guarantees can advantage nations like China and Russia, allowing them to expand their economic and military influence in power vacuums.

Some realist scholars posit that a United States less focused on global democratic leadership could theoretically manage a less hostile relationship with these long-term adversaries, though at a potential cost to the global balance of power and the security of traditional partners in Eastern Europe and the Indo-Pacific.

Domestically, the economic architecture of “America First” hinges on aggressive tariff policies and sweeping deregulation.

While intended to bolster domestic manufacturing, most mainsteam economic analyses, including those from the Federal Reserve and nonpartisan congressional bodies, concluded that the previous administration’s tariffs were largely absorbed by U.S. businesses and consumers, functioning as a tax on imports and contributing to inflationary pressures.

Proposals for a universal 10% baseline tariff and the dismantling of federal agencies would represent a more radical experiment, which economists from across the ideological spectrum warn could disrupt supply chains, provoke retaliatory cycles and increase the likelihood of a recession.

On the world stage, specific actions have prompted intense scrutiny. Strong rhetorical support for Israel during its conflict in Gaza, alongside maintained strategic ties with Saudi Arabia, reflects a longstanding U.S. alignment, but the intensity of the backing has complicated diplomacy with Arab partners.

Meanwhile, the previous administration’s overtures to North Korea, while unprecedented, did not result in a verifiable curtailment of its nuclear program.

Relations with China remain locked in comprehensive competition, with Beijing’s sustained economic growth ensuring its continued rise as a peer competitor, irrespective of U.S. policy.

The broader international concern, articulated by diplomats from allied nations, is that a sustained “America First” paradigm actively undermines the post-1945 system of alliances, rules and institutions that the United States itself helped build.

The question they now grapple with is not merely about policy differences, but about the potential decay of a cooperative security and economic order with no clear, stable replacement in sight.

The ultimate assessment of this approach, history suggests, will be measured not in slogans but in the enduring security and prosperity of the American people and the stability of a world still shaped by American power.

Whether the human race will survive any of this will determine if such history will mean anything.