As Antonio Gramsci sat in prison in 1930, he famously stated: “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.” Today, we find ourselves in a Gramscian interregnum, as the Pax Americana is faltering. Electorates across the West are rebelling against a social contract that has eroded into socioeconomic insecurity in the digital age. Immigration waves have ignited an angry ethno-nationalism that benefits ideological extremes. The global power balance is shifting from West to East and North to South, challenging the liberal order upheld by Western dominance. Russia and China are resisting a liberal framework they view as a guise for U.S. hegemony, while many in the global South express impatience with an international system perceived as exploitative.
Pax Americana has reached its expiration, yet the United States clings to it. Rather than initiating the difficult task of envisioning a new future, the Biden administration focused on defending the post-World War II “liberal rules-based order.” The outcome has been evident: discontent domestically and chaos internationally. The old is fading, the new struggles to emerge, and a plethora of alarming symptoms are surfacing.
In this climate, Donald Trump may serve as a catalyst for change. His “America First” approach—characterized by transactional, neo-isolationist, unilateral, and protectionist policies—departs sharply from the liberal internationalist strategies of past administrations. While this departure may be necessary, a constructive replacement is essential. Trump often resembles a demolition expert rather than a builder; rather than creating a new and improved international order, he risks leaving the world in ruins.
Nevertheless, Trump will lead the world’s most powerful nation for the next four years. Americans must navigate his attempts to overhaul U.S. foreign policy. This requires us to acknowledge Trump’s recognition of the need for a new grand strategy, while also pushing him toward radical yet responsible changes that reform the world America shaped rather than merely dismantling it.
Pax Americana emerged in the 1940s during World War II and the Cold War, fostering a shared commitment to internationalism among both political parties aimed at achieving geopolitical stability and prosperity through global power projection and a multilateral order among democracies.
Today, however, this internationalist consensus has fragmented. Deindustrialization, the erosion of the middle class, strategic overreach, hyperglobalization, and demographic shifts have drained political support for liberal internationalism. In response, Trump has utilized a rhetoric of grievance, vowing in his 2017 inaugural address to prioritize “America First” in every decision regarding trade, taxes, immigration, and foreign affairs.
During his first term, Trump struggled to uplift the “forgotten” Americans, contributing to his loss to Joe Biden in the election. Biden’s presidency has been characterized by reinstating liberal internationalism and supporting Pax Americana. While he strengthened traditional alliances and aided Ukraine against Russian aggression, he leaves office amid escalating global disorder and without resolving a war that Ukraine cannot win. Biden’s “foreign policy for the middle class” failed to bridge the polarized electorate, with blue-collar voters increasingly drawn to Trump’s message.
Now, Trump has another opportunity. His “America First” agenda may provoke unease among foreign policy traditionalists, yet it carries potential advantages. His pragmatic engagement with adversaries could better mitigate geopolitical tensions compared to Biden’s binary approach of democracy versus autocracy. Trump’s willingness to negotiate with Russia, China, and Iran is precisely what is necessary.
Initiating diplomatic efforts to conclude Russia’s war against Ukraine signifies pragmatism, not surrender; the urgency of ending the violence is clear. Trump’s invitation to Xi Jinping at his inauguration was strategic; if he can negotiate a trade deal that eases geopolitical tensions, it could be beneficial. With Elon Musk’s connections, potential diplomatic breakthroughs with Iran may also be on the horizon. If Trump can de-escalate tensions with adversaries, he will enhance global safety while reducing America’s extensive international commitments, alleviating the strategic overreach that has led to American introspection.
Trump understands that globalization has marginalized many American workers, and he is right to seek a more equitable trading environment. Addressing illegal immigration aligns with voter sentiment regarding a dysfunctional immigration system. If he can streamline the federal government and reduce national debt, he will be serving the nation’s interests.
More pragmatism, less ideological rigidity, greater restraint, and a focus on domestic challenges over foreign ideological battles are strategic pivots that could benefit the United States as it navigates an increasingly chaotic global landscape, characterized by shifting power dynamics and political diversity. Trump’s statecraft should be viewed not merely as the caprice of a chaotic demagogue, but as a necessary adjustment to a transforming world and America.
However, even if Trump’s “America First” foreign policy possesses significant potential, it is not without risks. His transactional diplomacy might devolve into rigid unilateralism that jeopardizes collaborative efforts. A reduction in U.S. foreign entanglements could create dangerous power vacuums. His hesitation to champion democracy abroad may lead to a disregard for democratic norms at home, risking irreversible damage to the nation’s institutions. In his quest to disrupt the political status quo, Trump might dismantle government functionality rather than reform it, leaving a fractured federal system ill-equipped to address domestic and global challenges.
Trump’s approach may veer into extremes. The challenge is to cultivate Trump’s constructive impulses while mitigating his more harmful tendencies, guiding both toward a coherent and effective grand strategy.
For the past four years, the Biden administration solidified alliances but overlooked vital diplomatic engagements with Russia and China. Trump’s openness to dialogue with adversaries could signify a positive change. Yet, the danger lies in Trump adopting a self-defeating unilateralism that isolates America; “America First” could quickly become “America Alone.”
In his first term, Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement, the World Health Organization, and other multilateral agreements, expressing disdain for international collaborations that he believes constrain American interests. His history of disparaging allies and viewing alliances as burdens raises concerns about his commitment to NATO, and his threats of economic and military coercion against Canada and other nations are alarming.
Unilateralism is untenable in today’s interdependent world. Addressing aggression, managing international trade, combating climate change, and preventing nuclear proliferation require international cooperation. The U.S. cannot withdraw from collective efforts without inviting similar responses from others. Allies amplify U.S. power, enhancing Trump’s negotiating position with adversaries. Conversely, if Trump undermines allies’ confidence in U.S. commitments, they may seek alternatives, isolating the U.S. and compromising its security—an outcome contrary to the principle of putting America first.
Trump’s enthusiasm for tariffs poses another concern. While selective tariffs might protect key industries, his broader ambitions could provoke a trade war that disrupts global trade and harms American families by elevating consumer goods prices. Automation has shifted the workforce toward services, making it unlikely that manufacturing jobs will return. A trade war would exacerbate geopolitical tensions, risking U.S. strategic isolation amid increasing global turbulence.
While Trump accurately recognizes the pitfalls of U.S. overreach, finding a balance between excessive involvement and withdrawal is critical.
Ukraine will serve as an early test. Trump’s desire to conclude the conflict is sensible; prolonged warfare risks Ukraine’s stability. However, he must refrain from abruptly halting U.S. aid, which would embolden Putin. A favorable resolution must be pursued to safeguard Ukrainian sovereignty, preventing further Russian dominance and thwarting the ambitions of China, Iran, and North Korea.
The U.S. role in the Middle East mirrors this dynamic: a strategic retreat is valid, but total withdrawal is imprudent. The errors in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya exemplify the risks of disengagement. Trump’s comments on Syria reflect a broader miscalculation; while disengagement appears appealing, the U.S. must remain involved due to its strategic interests and alliances in the region.
Trump’s approach to China remains uncertain. He often adopts a hawkish stance on trade, yet could hesitate when faced with military confrontations over Taiwan. His previous statements about Taiwan’s financial responsibilities for U.S. protection illustrate this ambiguity. The direction of Trump’s China policy will likely dictate his approach to Taiwan, either fostering heightened geopolitical tensions or seeking a balanced engagement that preserves stability.
Trump’s caution toward promoting democracy abroad reflects a necessary pragmatism. He rightly critiques American overreach and the misguided belief that Western-style democracies can be imposed upon nations with no desire for such systems. However, there’s a risk that this tolerance for international political diversity may coincide with efforts to undermine democratic ideals domestically. Trump’s past actions suggest a troubling disregard for democratic principles, as he continues to falsely assert election victories and threatens retaliatory measures against dissenters.
Decency and democracy are at stake. Trump’s legal troubles and questionable appointees raise ethical concerns. While immigration reform is needed, inhumane mass deportations would undermine America’s moral standing.
Globally, democracy is in retreat, particularly in the West, where political centrism is eroding amid rising populism. To reverse this trend, the U.S. must demonstrate that democratic governance can effectively serve citizens and outperform authoritarian regimes. At this critical juncture, the fate of American democracy will likely shape the global democratic landscape.
If Trump undermines the foundational laws and norms of republican governance, he risks inflicting lasting damage on democracy both domestically and internationally. It is the duty of the legislature, judiciary, media, and the populace to hold him accountable.
Trump possesses a mandate to challenge the political establishment and disrupt conventional wisdom. New perspectives and unpredictability can foster innovation and keep adversaries off balance.
Yet, many of Trump’s appointees lack the qualifications necessary for effective governance. His intentions to replace civil service and military personnel with loyalists could be detrimental. While the status quo warrants reevaluation, a competent executive branch is crucial for policy formulation and implementation. Elected officials must possess the expertise needed to manage large organizations effectively. Trump must avoid dismantling governmental structures that are essential for domestic and international policy execution.
The imperative for Americans, allies, and adversaries alike is to ensure that Trump’s second term fulfills its reformative potential rather than devolving into destruction. The world needs Trump as a reformer, not merely a disruptor. Collaborative engagement is possible if Trump channels his energies constructively. However, if he becomes a destroyer, checks and balances must be reinforced to prevent chaos.
