The sun rose last week over a peculiar new dawn in American politics: Donald J. Trump was sworn in as the 47th president of the United States, returning to the Oval Office after a contentious hiatus. With his hand on a gold-plated Bible—because what other kind is there? —Trump reignited his “America First” doctrine, a political anthem that is either the sweet sound of sovereignty or a dirge for multilateral diplomacy, depending on your seat at the symphony of geopolitics. His first act? A flurry of executive orders, signed with a flourish of his trademark Sharpie, each heralding the triumph of nationalist pragmatism. Or so we are told.
As history prepares to judge his redux, one must pause to marvel at the theatre of it all. Trump, the consummate showman, has once again set the stage for what he promises will be a spectacle of American renewal. But as with all sequels, one must ask: is the plot thickening, or is this just the original screenplay with a few updated special effects? To understand what Trump’s second term may mean, it’s essential to examine the substance—or illusion—behind the “America First” doctrine.
The Trumpian Mirage
“America First” sounds refreshingly straightforward, a mantra plucked from the lexicon of self-help books: prioritize yourself, secure your own oxygen mask before assisting others. Yet geopolitics is no friendly skies, and Trump’s doctrine is less a mask and more a magician’s smoke and mirrors. One might argue that Trump’s vision isn’t about abandoning the world stage but rather about directing the spotlight firmly on himself.
Take his first round of executive orders. Among them, a move to reintroduce tariffs on foreign-made goods, revive the Keystone XL pipeline, and bolster U.S. military deployments in the Pacific. Each move is calculated to project power. Tariffs may appease the Rust Belt voter, but they hardly address the structural challenges of a globalized economy. Pipelines might please fossil fuel lobbyists, but they overlook the inexorable march toward green energy. And ramping up military posturing in the Pacific may make for dramatic headlines, but will it fundamentally shift the balance with China, or simply inflame tensions?
The Shadow of History
Trump is not the first leader to lean on nationalism as a panacea for domestic and international woes. The history books are crowded with figures who have similarly proclaimed a singular focus on their nation’s primacy while rewriting the rules of engagement with the wider world.
Take Charles de Gaulle of France, who in the aftermath of World War II sought to reassert French grandeur by withdrawing from NATO’s integrated military command and vetoing British entry into the European Economic Community. De Gaulle’s vision of France was noble in theory, but in practice, it often alienated allies and left France strategically isolated. Trump’s America First doctrine echoes this playbook, offering a self-assured vision of sovereignty that may ultimately undermine the very alliances that buttress American power.
Or consider Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady of Britain, who famously declared, “Watch your pennies, and the pounds will take care of themselves.” Her emphasis on British sovereignty and economic self-reliance transformed the nation, but not without profound social and economic divisions. Trump’s tariffs and protectionist policies carry similar risks: a short-term boost for some, a long-term challenge for many.
Even Vladimir Putin, whose nationalist rhetoric and muscular foreign policy have earned him domestic loyalty, provides a cautionary tale. His focus on projecting strength abroad has often masked economic stagnation and internal dissent. The parallels to Trump’s doctrine are hard to ignore: both leaders trade in the currency of spectacle, using international conflicts to distract from domestic fissures.
Diplomatic Déjà Vu
Trump’s return to the Oval Office also invites a sobering reflection on America’s historical approach to the world. The United States has always vacillated between interventionism and isolationism, a geopolitical pendulum that swings with the whims of public sentiment and the personalities of its leaders.
Woodrow Wilson, for instance, championed the League of Nations as a bulwark against future conflicts, only to see the U.S. retreat into isolationism after World War I. Franklin D. Roosevelt pulled America back onto the global stage during World War II, creating the foundations for a rules-based international order. Trump’s America First doctrine represents yet another swing of the pendulum, this time toward a vision of the U.S. as less a leader and more a lone wolf.
But history also warns of the dangers of retreat. The isolationist policies of the 1930s, for example, allowed totalitarian regimes in Europe and Asia to flourish unchecked, leading to a global conflagration. While Trump is not advocating for a full withdrawal, his disdain for multilateral institutions and alliances risks creating a vacuum that adversaries like China and Russia will eagerly fill.
The Costs of First
Critics of Trump’s America First policy have long argued that it’s a misnomer. Prioritizing one’s nation does not require abandoning cooperation or shirking responsibility. Indeed, the great paradox of Trump’s approach is that true strength often lies in unity, not isolation.
Take the Paris Climate Agreement, from which Trump withdrew in his first term and has shown no signs of rejoining. The agreement, while imperfect, represents a collective effort to address a global crisis. By eschewing such frameworks, Trump’s America First policy effectively cedes leadership to others. Similarly, his skepticism of NATO undermines a cornerstone of U.S. security, one that has deterred aggression for decades.
The domestic costs are no less stark. Protectionist trade policies may shield certain industries, but they also drive-up prices for consumers and strain relationships with key partners. Energy policies that prioritize short-term gains over long-term sustainability ignore the reality of climate change. And military posturing without a clear strategy risk entangling the U.S. in conflicts it cannot win.
The Theatre of Power
As Trump settles into his second term, it’s worth asking whether America First is a genuine doctrine or merely a stage play designed to keep the audience entertained. His ability to dominate the news cycle is unparalleled, but the world does not run on headlines alone. Geopolitics is a complex and often unsatisfying endeavour, requiring compromise, patience, and humility—traits not typically associated with Trump’s leadership style.
One cannot deny that Trump’s return marks a pivotal moment in American politics. His base sees him as a redeemer, a bulwark against the forces of globalization and liberal elitism. His detractors view him as a demagogue whose policies endanger the very fabric of American democracy. Both may be right, in their own way.
But as history has shown, nationalism is a double-edged sword. Leaders who wield it must carefully balance the demands of domestic politics with the realities of an interconnected world. For all his bravado, Trump has yet to demonstrate that he understands this balance. His America First policy may resonate with voters, but its long-term viability remains an open question.
In the end, Trump’s second term may be less about America’s place in the world and more about the man himself. Like a Shakespearean protagonist, he is both hero and villain, driven by ambition and hubris. Whether his story ends in triumph or tragedy will depend not only on his actions but on how America chooses to define its role in the 21st century.
