U.S. Role in the World: Background and Issues for Congress

Updated March 24, 2020 (R44891)
Jump to Main Text of Report

Contents

Appendixes

Summary

The U.S. role in the world refers to the overall character, purpose, or direction of U.S. participation in international affairs and the country's overall relationship to the rest of the world. The U.S. role in the world can be viewed as establishing the overall context or framework for U.S. policymakers for developing, implementing, and measuring the success of U.S. policies and actions on specific international issues, and for foreign countries or other observers for interpreting and understanding U.S. actions on the world stage.

While descriptions of the U.S. role in the world since the end of World War II vary in their specifics, it can be described in general terms as consisting of four key elements: global leadership; defense and promotion of the liberal international order; defense and promotion of freedom, democracy, and human rights; and prevention of the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia.

The issue for Congress is whether the U.S. role in the world is changing, and if so, what implications this might have for the United States and the world. A change in the U.S. role could have significant and even profound effects on U.S. security, freedom, and prosperity. It could significantly affect U.S. policy in areas such as relations with allies and other countries, defense plans and programs, trade and international finance, foreign assistance, and human rights.

Some observers, particularly critics of the Trump Administration, argue that under the Trump Administration, the United States is substantially changing the U.S. role in the world. Other observers, particularly supporters of the Trump Administration, while acknowledging that the Trump Administration has changed U.S. foreign policy in a number of areas compared to policies pursued by the Obama Administration, argue that under the Trump Administration, there has been less change and more continuity regarding the U.S. role in the world.

Some observers who assess that the United States under the Trump Administration is substantially changing the U.S. role in the world—particularly critics of the Trump Administration, and also some who were critical of the Obama Administration—view the implications of that change as undesirable. They view the change as an unnecessary retreat from U.S. global leadership and a gratuitous discarding of long-held U.S. values, and judge it to be an unforced error of immense proportions—a needless and self-defeating squandering of something of great value to the United States that the United States had worked to build and maintain for 70 years.

Other observers who assess that there has been a change in the U.S. role in the world in recent years—particularly supporters of the Trump Administration, but also some observers who were arguing even prior to the Trump Administration in favor of a more restrained U.S. role in the world—view the change in the U.S. role, or at least certain aspects of it, as helpful for responding to changed U.S. and global circumstances and for defending U.S. values and interests, particularly in terms of adjusting the U.S. role to one that is more realistic regarding what the United States can accomplish, enhancing deterrence of potential regional aggression by making potential U.S. actions less predictable to potential adversaries, reestablishing respect for national sovereignty as a guidepost for U.S. foreign policy and for organizing international affairs, and encouraging U.S. allies and security partners in Eurasia to do more to defend themselves.

Congress's decisions regarding the U.S. role in the world could have significant implications for numerous policies, plans, programs, and budgets, and for the role of Congress relative to that of the executive branch in U.S. foreign policymaking.


Introduction

This report provides background information and issues for Congress regarding the U.S. role in the world, meaning the overall character, purpose, or direction of U.S. participation in international affairs and the country's overall relationship to the rest of the world. The U.S. role in the world can be viewed as establishing the overall context or framework for U.S. policymakers for developing, implementing, and measuring the success of U.S. policies and actions on specific international issues, and for foreign countries or other observers for interpreting and understanding U.S. actions on the world stage.

Some observers perceive that after remaining generally stable for a period of more than 70 years (i.e., since the end of World War II in 1945), the U.S. role in the world under the Trump Administration is undergoing a potentially historic change. A change in the U.S. role in the world could have significant and even profound effects on U.S. security, freedom, and prosperity. It could significantly affect U.S. policy in areas such as relations with allies and other countries, defense plans and programs, trade and international finance, foreign assistance, and human rights.

The issue for Congress is whether the U.S. role in the world is changing, and if so, what implications this might have for the United States and the world. Congress's decisions regarding the U.S. role in the world could have significant implications for numerous policies, plans, programs, and budgets, and for the role of Congress relative to that of the executive branch in U.S. foreign policymaking.

A variety of other CRS reports address in greater depth specific international issues mentioned in this report. Appendix A provides a glossary of some key terms used in this report, such as international order or regional hegemon. For convenience, this report uses the term U.S. role as a shorthand for referring to the U.S. role in the world.

Background

Overview of U.S. Role: Four Key Elements

While descriptions of the U.S. role in the world since the end of World War II vary in their specifics, it can be described in general terms as consisting of four key elements:

The following sections provide brief discussions of these four key elements.

Global Leadership

The U.S. role in the world since the end of World War II is generally described, first and foremost, as one of global leadership, meaning that the United States tends to be the first or most important country for identifying or framing international issues, taking actions to address those issues, setting an example for other countries to follow, organizing and implementing multilateral efforts to address international issues, and enforcing international rules and norms.

Observers over the years have referred to U.S. global leadership using various terms, some of which reflect varying degrees of approval or disapproval of this aspect of the U.S. role. Examples of such terms (other than global leader itself) include leader of the free world, superpower, indispensable power, system administrator, hyperpower, world policeman, or world hegemon.

The U.S. role of global leadership has resulted in extensive U.S. involvement in international affairs, and this, too, has been described with various phrases. The United States has been described as pursuing an internationalist foreign policy; a foreign policy of global engagement or deep engagement; a foreign policy that provides global public goods; a foreign policy of liberal order building, liberal internationalism, or liberal hegemony; an interventionist foreign policy; or a foreign policy of seeking primacy or world hegemony.

Defense and Promotion of Liberal International Order

A second key element of the U.S. role in the world since World War II—one that can be viewed as inherently related to the first key element above—has been to defend and promote the liberal international order1 that the United States, with the support of its allies, created in the years after World War II. Although definitions of the liberal international order vary, key elements of it are generally said to include the following:

Most of the key elements above (arguably, all but the final one) can be viewed collectively as forming what is commonly referred to as a rules-based international order. A traditional antithesis of a rules-based order is a might-makes-right order (sometimes colloquially referred to as the law of the jungle), which is an international order (or a situation lacking in order) in which more powerful countries routinely impose their will arbitrarily on less-powerful countries, organizations, and individuals, with little or no regard to rules.

Though often referred to as if it is a fully developed or universally established situation, the liberal international order, like other international orders that preceded it, is

Some observers, emphasizing points like those above, argue that the liberal international order is more of a myth than a reality. Other observers, particularly supporters of the order, while acknowledging the limitations of the order, reject characterizations of it as a myth and emphasize its differences from international orders that preceded it.

As mentioned above, the liberal international order was created by the United States with the support of its allies in the years immediately after World War II. At that time, the United States was the only country with both the capacity and willingness to establish a new international order. U.S. willingness to establish and play a leading role in maintaining the liberal international order is generally viewed as reflecting a desire by U.S. policymakers to avoid repeating the deadly major wars and widespread economic disruption and deprivation of the first half of the 20th century—a period that included World War I, the Great Depression, the rise of communism and fascism, the Ukrainian famine, the Holocaust, and World War II.

U.S. willingness to establish and play a leading role in maintaining the liberal international order is also generally viewed as an act of national self-interest, reflecting a belief among U.S. policymakers that it would strongly serve U.S. security, political, and economic objectives. Supporters of the liberal international order generally argue that in return for bearing the costs of creating and sustaining the liberal international order, the United States receives significant security, political, and economic benefits, including the maintenance of a favorable balance of power on both a global and regional level, and a leading or dominant role in establishing and operating global institutions and rules for international finance and trade. Indeed, some critics of the liberal international order argue that it is primarily a construct for serving U.S. interests and promoting U.S. world primacy or hegemony. The costs and benefits for the United States of defending and promoting the liberal international order, however, are a matter of debate.

Defense and Promotion of Freedom, Democracy, and Human Rights

A third key element of the U.S. role in the world since World War II has been to defend and promote freedom, democracy, and human rights as universal values, while criticizing and resisting authoritarian and illiberal forms of government where possible. This element of the U.S. role is viewed as consistent not only with core U.S. political values but also with a theory advanced by some observers (sometimes called the democratic peace theory) that democratic countries are more responsive to the desires of their populations and consequently are less likely to wage wars of aggression or go to war with one another.

Defending and promoting freedom, democracy, and human rights is additionally viewed as a key component of U.S. soft power, because it can encourage like-minded governments, as well as organizations and individuals in other countries, to work with the United States, and because it has the potential to shape the behavior of authoritarian and illiberal governments that are acting against U.S. interests by shaming those governments and inspiring prodemocracy organizations and individuals within those countries.

Prevention of Emergence of Regional Hegemons in Eurasia

A fourth element of the U.S. role in the world since World War II—one that U.S. policymakers do not often state explicitly in public—has been to oppose the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia. This objective reflects a U.S. perspective on geopolitics and grand strategy developed by U.S. strategists and policymakers during and in the years immediately after World War II that incorporates two key judgments:

Preventing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia is sometimes also referred to as preserving a division of power in Eurasia, or as preventing key regions in Eurasia from coming under the domination of a single power, or as preventing the emergence of a spheres-of-influence world, which could be a consequence of the emergence of one or more regional hegemons in Eurasia.

U.S. actions that can be viewed as expressions of the U.S. goal of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia include but are not necessarily limited to the following:

In pursuing the goal of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia, U.S. policymakers have sometimes decided to work with or support nondemocratic regimes that for their own reasons view Russia, China, or Iran as competitors or adversaries. As a consequence, the goal of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons in Asia has sometimes been in tension with defending and promoting freedom, democracy, and human rights.

Changes over Time

Although the U.S. role in the world was generally stable over the past 70 years, the specifics of U.S. foreign policy for implementing that role have changed frequently for various reasons, including changes in administrations and changes in the international security environment. Definitions of the U.S. role have room within them to accommodate some variation in the specifics of U.S. foreign policy.

Long-Standing Debate over Its Merits

The fact that the U.S. role in the world has been generally stable over the past 70 years does not necessarily mean that this role was the right one for the United States, or that it would be the right one in the future. Although the role the United States has played in the world since the end of World War II has many defenders, it also has critics, and the merits of that role have been a matter of long-standing debate among foreign policy specialists, strategists, policymakers, and the public, with critics offering potential alternative concepts for the U.S. role in the world.

The most prominent dimension of the debate is whether the United States should attempt to continue playing the active internationalist role that it has played for the past 70 years, or instead adopt a more restrained role that reduces U.S. involvement in world affairs. A number of critics of the U.S. role in the world over the past 70 years have offered multiple variations on the idea of a more restrained U.S. role. (For additional discussion, see Appendix B.)

A second major dimension within the debate over the future U.S. role concerns how to balance or combine the pursuit of narrowly defined material U.S. interests with the goal of defending and promoting U.S. or universal values such as democracy, freedom, and human rights. A third major dimension concerns the balance in U.S. foreign policy between the use of hard power and soft power. Observers debating these two dimensions of the future U.S. role in the world stake out varying positions on these questions.

Issues for Congress

The issue for Congress is whether the U.S. role in the world is changing, and if so, what implications this might have for the United States and the world. The sections below provide some discussion of this issue.

Is the United States Changing Its Role?

There currently are multiple views on the question of whether the United States under the Trump Administration is changing the U.S. role in the world, some of which are outlined briefly below.

Some Observers Believe the United States Is Changing Its Role

Some observers, particularly critics of the Trump Administration, argue that under the Trump Administration, the United States is substantially changing the U.S. role in the world by altering some or all of the four key elements of the U.S. role described earlier. Although views among these observers vary in their specifics, a number of these observers argue that the Administration's America First construct, its emphasis on national sovereignty as a primary guidepost for U.S. foreign policy, and other Administration actions and statements form a new U.S. role characterized by

In support of this view, these observers cite various Administration actions and statements, including, among other things

Other Observers Disagree

Other observers, particularly supporters of the Trump Administration, disagree with some or all of the perspective above. While acknowledging that the Trump Administration has changed U.S. foreign policy in a number of areas compared to policies pursued by the Obama Administration, these observers argue that under the Trump Administration, there has been less change and more continuity regarding the U.S. role in the world. In support of this view, these observers cite, among other things

Still Other Observers See a Mixed or Confusing Situation

Still other observers, viewing points made by both of the above sets of observers, see a mixed or confusing situation regarding whether the United States under the Trump Administration is changing the U.S. role in the world. For these observers, whether the U.S. role is changing is difficult to discern, in part because what they view as incoherence or contradictions in the Administration's foreign policies and in part because the President's apparent views on certain issues—such as the value of U.S. alliances, the acceptability of certain actions by Russia or North Korea, and the importance of democracy and human rights as universal values—have frequently been in tension with or contradicted by statements and actions of senior Administration officials (particularly those who served during the first two years or so of the Administration), with the President's views being more consistent with the change in the U.S. role outlined by the first set of observers above, and statements and actions of senior Administration officials frequently being more consistent with a continuation of the U.S. role of the past 70 years outlined by the second set of observers above.

Some Observers Argue That Change Began Earlier

Some observers argue that if the U.S. role is changing, that change started not under the Trump Administration, but under the Obama Administration, particularly regarding the question of whether the United States has reduced or withdrawn from global leadership. In support of this view, these observers cite what they views as the Obama Administration's

Still others view the start of a change in the U.S. role as occurring even sooner, under the George W. Bush Administration—when that Administration did not respond more strongly to Russia's 2008 invasion and occupation of part of Georgia—or under the Clinton Administration.

For these observers, a change in the U.S. role in the world under the Trump Administration may represent not so much a shift in the U.S. role as a continuation or deepening of a change that began in a prior U.S. Administration.

Potential Combined Perspectives

The perspectives outlined in the preceding sections are not necessarily mutually exclusive—assessments combining aspects of more than one of these perspectives are possible.

Implications of a Changed U.S. Role

Among observers who assess that there has been a change in the U.S. role in the world in recent years, there are multiple views regarding the potential implications of that change.

Some Observers View Implications as Undesirable

Some observers who assess that the United States under the Trump Administration is substantially changing the U.S. role in the world—particularly critics of the Trump Administration, and also some who were critical of the Obama Administration—view the implications of that change as undesirable. They view the change as an unnecessary retreat from U.S. global leadership and a gratuitous discarding of long-held U.S. values, and judge it to be an unforced error of immense proportions—a needless and self-defeating squandering of something of great value to the United States that the United States had worked to build and maintain for 70 years. More specifically, they argue that the change in the U.S. role in recent years that they see is doing some or all of the following:

Other Observers View Implications as Helpful

Other observers who assess that there has been a change in the U.S. role in the world in recent years—particularly supporters of the Trump Administration, but also some observers who were arguing even prior to the Trump Administration in favor of a more restrained U.S. role in the world—view the change in the U.S. role, or at least certain aspects of it, as helpful for responding to changed U.S. and global circumstances and for defending U.S. values and interests. More specifically, they argue that the change in the U.S. role in recent years that they see is doing some or all of the following:

Some Related or Additional Issues

The following sections provide brief discussions of some related or additional issues for Congress regarding the U.S. role in the world.

Costs and Benefits of Allies

Within the overall debate over the U.S. role in the world, one specific question relates to the costs and benefits of allies. As noted earlier, some observers believe that under the Trump Administration, the United States is becoming more skeptical of the value of allies, particularly those in Europe, and more transactional in managing U.S. alliance relationships.

Skeptics of allies and alliances generally argue that their value to the United States is overrated; that allies are capable of defending themselves without U.S. help; that U.S. allies frequently act as free riders in their alliance relationships with the United States by shifting security costs to the United States; that in the absence of U.S. help, these allies would do more on their own to balance against potential regional hegemons; and that alliances create a risk of drawing the United States into conflicts involving allies over issues that are not vital to the United States.

Supporters of the U.S. approach to allies and alliances of the past 70 years, while acknowledging the free-rider issue as something that needs to be managed, generally argue that alliances are needed and valuable for preventing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia and for otherwise deterring potential regional aggression; that alliances form a significant advantage for the United States in its dealings with other major powers, such as Russia and China (both of which largely lack similar alliance networks); that although allies might be capable of defending themselves without U.S. help, they might also choose, in the absence of U.S. help, to bandwagon with would-be regional hegemons (rather than contribute to efforts to balance against them); that in addition to mutual defense benefits, alliances offer other benefits, particularly in peacetime, including sharing of intelligence, information, and technology and the cultivation of soft-power forms of cooperation; and that a transactional approach to alliances, which encourages the merits of each bilateral alliance relationship to be measured in isolation, overlooks the collective benefits of maintaining alliances with multiple countries in a region.

U.S. Public Opinion

U.S. public opinion can be an important factor in debates over the future U.S. role in the world. Among other things, public opinion can

Foreign policy specialists, strategists, and policymakers sometimes invoke U.S. public opinion poll results in debates on the U.S. role in the world. One issue relating to U.S. public opinion that observers are discussing is the extent to which the U.S. public may now believe that U.S. leaders have broken a tacit social contract under which the U.S. public has supported the costs of U.S. global leadership in return for the promise of receiving certain benefits, particularly steady increases in real incomes and the standard of living.

Operation of U.S. Democracy

Another potential issue for Congress is how the operation of democracy in the United States might affect the U.S. role in the world, particularly in terms of defending and promoting democracy and criticizing and resisting authoritarian and illiberal forms of government.

During the Cold War, the effective operation of U.S. democracy at the federal level and lower levels was viewed as helpful for arguing on the world stage that Western-style democracy was superior, for encouraging other countries to adopt that model, and for inspiring people in the Soviet Union and other authoritarian countries to resist authoritarianism and seek change in the direction of more democratic forms of government. The ability of the United State to demonstrate the effectiveness of democracy as a form of government was something that in today's parlance would be termed an element of U.S. soft power.

The end of the Cold War led to a diminution in the ideological debate about the relative merits of democracy versus authoritarianism as forms of government. As a possible consequence, there may have been less of a perceived need during this period for focusing on the question of whether the operation of U.S. democracy was being viewed positively or otherwise by observers in other countries.

The shift in the international environment over the past few years from the post-Cold War era to a new situation featuring renewed great power competition5 has led to a renewed ideological debate about the relative merits of Western-style democracy versus 21st-century forms of authoritarian and illiberal government. Articles in China's state-controlled media, for example, sometimes criticize the operation of U.S. democracy and argue that China's form of governance is more advantageous. The potential issue for Congress is whether, in a period of renewed ideological competition, there is now once again a need for focusing more on the question of whether the operation of U.S. democracy is being viewed positively or otherwise by observers in other countries.

Potential Implications for Congress as an Institution

Another issue for Congress is what implications a changed U.S. role in the world might have for Congress as an institution, particularly regarding the preservation and use of congressional powers and prerogatives relating to foreign policy, national security, and international economic policy, and more generally the role of Congress relative to that of the executive branch in U.S. foreign policymaking. Specific matters here include, among other things, the question of war powers, the delegation of authority for imposing tariffs, and whether a change in the U.S. role would have any implications for congressional organization, capacity, and operations.

Reversibility of a Change in U.S. Role

Another potential issue for Congress is whether a change in the U.S. role in the world would at some point in the future be reversible, should U.S. policymakers in the future desire to return to a U.S. role in the world more like that of the past 70 years. Potential questions for Congress include the following:

Additional Writings

As potential sources of additional reading, Appendix C presents a list of recent writings on whether the United States under the Trump Administration is changing the U.S. role in the world and what the implications of such a change might be.

Appendix A. Glossary of Selected Terms

Some key terms used in this report include the following:

Role in the world

The term role in the world generally refers in foreign policy discussions to the overall character, purpose, or direction of a country's participation in international affairs or the country's overall relationship to the rest of the world. A country's role in the world can be taken as a visible expression of its grand strategy (see next item). In this report, the term U.S. role in the world is often shortened for convenience to U.S. role.

Grand strategy

The term grand strategy generally refers in foreign policy discussions to a country's overall approach for securing its interests and making its way in the world, using all the national instruments at its disposal, including diplomatic, informational, military, and economic tools (sometimes abbreviated in U.S. government parlance as DIME). A country's leaders might deem elements of a country's grand strategy to be secret, so that assessments, assumptions, or risks included in the strategy are not revealed to potential adversaries. Consequently, a country's leaders might say relatively little in public about the country's grand strategy. As mentioned above, however, a country's role in the world can be taken as a visible expression of its grand strategy. For the United States, grand strategy can be viewed as strategy at a global or interregional level, as opposed to U.S. strategies for individual regions, countries, or issues.

International order/world order

The term international order or world order generally refers in foreign policy discussions to the collection of organizations, institutions, treaties, rules, norms, and practices that are intended to organize, structure, and regulate international relations during a given historical period. International orders tend to be established by major world powers, particularly in the years following wars between major powers, though they can also emerge at other times. Though often referred to as if they are fully developed or firmly established situations, international orders are usually incomplete, partly aspirational, sometimes violated by their supporters, rejected (or at least not supported) by certain states and nonstate actors, and subject to various stresses and challenges.

Unipolar/bipolar/tripolar/multipolar

In foreign policy discussions, terms like unipolar, bipolar, tripolar, and multipolar are sometimes used to refer to the number of top-tier world powers whose actions tend to characterize or give structure to a given historical period's international security situation. The Cold War that lasted from the late 1940s to the late 1980s or early 1990s is usually described as a bipolar situation featuring a competition between two superpowers (the United States and the Soviet Union) and their allies. The post-Cold War era, which followed the Cold War, is sometimes described as the unipolar moment, with the United States being the unipolar power, meaning the world's sole superpower.

As discussed in another CRS report,6 observers have concluded that in recent years, there has been a shift from the post-Cold War era to a new international security situation characterized by renewed great power competition between the United States, China, and Russia, leading observers to refer to the new situation as a tripolar or multipolar world. Observers who might list additional countries (or groups of countries, such as the European Union) as additional top-tier world powers, along with the United States, China, and Russia, might also use the term multipolar.

Eurasia

The term Eurasia is used in this report to refer to the entire land mass that encompasses both Europe and Asia, including its fringing islands, extending from Portugal on its western end to Japan on its eastern end, and from Russia's Arctic coast on its northern edge to India on its southern edge, and encompassing all the lands and countries in between, including those of Central Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. Eurasia's fringing islands include, among others, the United Kingdom and Ireland in Europe, Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean, the archipelagic countries of Southeast Asia, and Japan. There are also other definitions of Eurasia, some of which are more specialized and refer to subsets of the broad area described above.

Regional hegemon

The term regional hegemon generally refers to a country so powerful relative to the other countries in its region that it can dominate the affairs of that region and compel other countries in that region to support (or at least not oppose) the hegemon's key policy goals. The United States is generally considered to have established itself in the 19th century as the hegemon of the Western Hemisphere.

Spheres-of-influence world

The term spheres-of-influence world generally refers to a world that, in terms of its structure of international relations, is divided into multiple regions (i.e., spheres), each with its own hegemon. A spheres-of-influence world, like a multipolar world, is characterized by having multiple top-tier powers. In a spheres-of-influence world, however, at least some of those top-tier powers have achieved a status of regional hegemon, while in a multipolar world, few or none of those major world powers (other than the United States, the regional hegemon of the Western Hemisphere) have achieved a status of regional hegemon. As a result, in a spheres-of-influence world, international relations are more highly segmented on a regional basis than they are in a multipolar world.

Geopolitics

The term geopolitics is often used as a synonym for international politics or for strategy relating to international politics. More specifically, it refers to the influence of basic geographic features on international relations, and to the analysis of international relations from a perspective that places a strong emphasis on the influence of such geographic features. Basic geographic features involved in geopolitical analysis include things such as the relative sizes and locations of countries or land masses; the locations of key resources such as oil or water; geographic barriers such as oceans, deserts, and mountain ranges; and key transportation links such as roads, railways, and waterways.

Hard power and soft power

In foreign policy discussions, the term hard power generally refers to coercive power, particularly military and economic power, while the term soft power generally refers to the ability to persuade or attract support, particularly through diplomacy, development assistance, support for international organizations, education and cultural exchanges, and the international popularity of cultural elements such as music, movies, television shows, and literature.

Appendix B. Past U.S. Role vs. More Restrained Role

This appendix provides additional discussion on the debate over whether the United States should attempt to continue playing the active internationalist role that it has played for the past 70 years, or instead adopt a more restrained role that reduces U.S. involvement in world affairs.

Among U.S. strategists and foreign policy specialists, advocates of a more restrained U.S. role include (to cite a few examples) Andrew Bacevich, Doug Bandow, Ted Galen Carpenter, John Mearsheimer, Barry Posen, Christopher Preble, William Ruger, and Stephen Walt. These and other authors have offered multiple variations on the idea of a more restrained U.S. role. Terms such as offshore balancing, offshore control, realism, strategy of restraint, or retrenchment have been used to describe some of these variations.7 These variations on the idea of a more restrained U.S. role would not necessarily match in their details a changed U.S. role that might be pursued by the Trump Administration.8

Arguments in Favor of a More Restrained U.S. Role

Observers advocating a more restrained U.S. role in the world make various arguments regarding the United States and other countries. Arguments that they make relating to the United States include the following:

Arguments that these observers make relating to other countries include the following:

Arguments in Favor of Continuing U.S. Role of the Past 70 Years

Observers who support a continuation of the U.S. role in the world of the past 70 years generally reject the above arguments and argue the opposite. Arguments that these observers make relating to the United States include the following:

Arguments that these observers make relating to other countries include the following:

Appendix C. Additional Writings

As potential sources of additional reading, this appendix presents a list of writings over the past year or so on whether the United States under the Trump Administration is changing the U.S. role in the world and what the implications of such a change might be, listed in chronological order, with the most recent on top. Writings from more than a year ago can be found in earlier versions of this report.

George Packer, "The President Is Winning His War on American Institutions," Atlantic, April 2020.

Jonathan Marcus, "Coronavirus: US-China Battle Behind the Scenes," BBC News, March 24, 2020.

Mira Rapp-Hooper, "China, America, and the International Order After the Pandemic," War on the Rocks, March 24, 2020.

Anne Applebaum, "The People in Charge See an Opportunity, Around the World, Rulers Are Using the Pandemic As An Excuse to Grab More Power. And the Public Is Going Along with It." Atlantic, March 23, 2020.

Doug Bandow, "A War of Words With China Helps Nobody," Foreign Policy, March 23, 2020.

Dan Blumenthal, "Donald Trump's China Problem Has Arrived," National Interest, March 23, 2020.

Elisabeth Braw, "As the West Panics, Putin Is Watching," Foreign Policy, March 23, 2020.

Emily de La Bruyere and Nathan Picarsic, "Competition Meets Crisis: China's Perverse Opportunity and a Strategic Response," National Interest, March 23, 2020.

Editorial Board, "The Coronavirus Pandemic May Mark a Decline in U.S. Leadership," Washington Post, March 23, 2020.

Azeem Ibrahim, "China's Debt Diplomacy Will Get a Coronavirus Boost," Foreign Policy, March 23, 2020.

Matthew Kroenig, "Pandemics Can Fast Forward the Rise and Fall of Great Powers," National Interest, March 23, 2020.

Stephen S. Roach and Daniel J. Arbess, "US Lives and Economic Stability Are Threatened by Coronavirus Conflict with China," The Hill, March 23, 2020.

Stephen M. Walt, "The Death of American Competence, Washington's Reputation for Expertise Has Been One of the Greatest Sources of Its Power. The Coronavirus Pandemic May End It for Good." Foreign Policy, March 23, 2020.

Gordon G. Chang, "Donald Trump Can't Cooperate with China on Coronavirus," National Interest, March 22, 2020.

Michael Crowley, Edward Wong and Lara Jakes, "Coronavirus Drives the U.S. and China Deeper Into Global Power Struggle," New York Times, March 22, 2020.

Melinda Haring and Doug Klain, "Why Autocrats Love Coronavirus," National Interest, March 22, 2020.

Ronald E. Neumann and Marc Grossman, "More US Diplomats Need to Be Overseas to Best Serve America," The Hill, March 22, 2020.

Stratfor Worldview, "Coronavirus Could Lead To Lots of This in the Near Future," National Interest, March 22, 2020. (The article discusses potential actions by non-state actors.)

John Allen et al., "How the World Will Look after the Coronavirus Pandemic," Foreign Policy, March 20, 2020.

Ari Cicurel, "'Endless Wars' and Political Warfare," The Hill, March 20, 2020.

Richard Fontaine, "Virus Competition Is Wrecking China-U.S. Cooperation Hopes, Coronavirus Efforts Are A New Battlefront—and Beijing Is the Only One in the Game." Foreign Policy, March 20, 2020.

James Holmes, "Beware of Pandemic America, Note to China and Russia: despite appearances, the time of coronavirus may not be an opportune time for you to chisel away at America's global standing." National Interest, March 20, 2020.

Suzanne Nossel, "China Is Fighting the Coronavirus Propaganda War to Win," Foreign Policy, March 20, 2020.

Kori Schake, "The Damage That 'America First' Has Done," Atlantic, March 20, 2020.

Gary J. Schmitt, "National Security and the Pandemic of 2020," American Interest, March 20, 2020.

David Ignatius, "The Coronavirus Is A Test of Our National Character," Washington Post, March 19, 2020.

David E. Sanger, David D. Kirkpatrick, Sui-Lee Wee, and Katrin Bennhold, "Search for Coronavirus Vaccine Becomes a Global Competition, The United States, China and Europe are battling to be the first to find a cure, bringing a nationalist element to a worldwide crisis." New York Times, March 19, 2020.

Katie Bo Williams, "US-China Tensions Heat Up As Beijing Seeks Leadership Role," Defense One, March 20, 2020.

Morten Soendergaard Larsen and Robbie Gramer, "China Casts Itself as Global Savior While U.S. and EU Focus on Virus at Home," Foreign Policy, March 19, 2020.

Bradley A. Thayer and Lianchao Han, "China's Coronavirus Plan: Create a 'Silk Road' of Health Care Leading Towards World Dominance," National Interest, March 19, 2020.

Daniel B. Baer, "The Virus Has Exposed the Recklessness of Trump's 'America First,'" Foreign Policy, March 18, 2020.

Dan Blumenthal, "Coronavirus and the Future of US-China Geopolitical Competition: What We Know So Far," Center for Strategic and International Studies, March 18, 2020.

Kurt M. Campbell and Rush Doshi, "The Coronavirus Could Reshape Global Order, China Is Maneuvering for International Leadership as the United States Falters," Foreign Affairs, March 18, 2020.

Joseph Haboush, "The US Must Remain Engaged in Lebanon or Risk Russian and Chinese Gains," Middle East Institute, March 18, 2020.

Walter Russell Mead, "Beijing Escalates the New Cold War," Wall Street Journal, March 18, 2020.

Wilson VornDick, "America Must Have a Grander Strategy for China," National Interest, March 16, 2020.

James Jay Carafano, "Syria Is the War Nobody Wins, Except Maybe Trump," Heritage Foundation, March 11, 2020.

James Andrew Lewis, "Strategy After Deterrence," Center for Strategic and International Studies, March 11, 2020.

David Ignatius, "Trump's Pushback Against China Pays Off with An Important Win," Washington Post, March 10, 2020.

Daniel Kochis, "Recent EU Strategic Autonomy Advances Threaten the Transatlantic Link," Heritage Foundation, March 9, 2020.

Patrick Tyrrell and Anthony B. Kim, "Foreign Aid Should Go to Those in Need, Not Ruling Elites," Heritage Foundation, March 9, 2020.

Doug Bandow, "The Brutal Tragedy of Idlib: Why the U.S. Should Stay out of Syria and Dump NATO," National Interest, March 7, 2020.

Doug Bandow, "Trump's Policy Inadvertently Aids the Xi Government," China-US Focus, March 6, 2020.

James Jay Carafano and Daniel Kochis, "The Quiet Success of Trump's Politically Appointed Ambassadors in Europe," Heritage Foundation, March 5, 2020.

Michael Rubin, "Pompeo's State Department Keeps Supporting Islamic Extremists," National Interest, March 3, 2020.

Clark Packard, Scott Lincicome, Kimberly Clausing, and Mary Lovely, "How to Make America's Next Trade Policy," Bulwark, March 2, 2020.

Stephen M. Walt, "Grow Up About Dictators, America!" Foreign Policy, March 2, 2020.

Peter Harris, "America Alone: Why the Trump Administration Will Pay for Alienating Its Strategic Partners," National Interest, February 28, 2020.

James Jay Carafano, "3 Big Takeaways From Trump's Successful Trip to India," Heritage Foundation, February 27, 2020.

Svante E. Cornell and Brenda Shaffer, "The United States Needs to Declare War on Proxies," Foreign Policy, February 27, 2020.

Scott Lincicome, "Who Are the Real Trade 'Fundamentalists'?" Dispatch, February 27, 2020.

Philip Stephens, "Donald Trump's America Is Threatening the Nuclear Peace," Financial Times, February 27, 2020.

Peter Rough, "Europe Is Thinking Harder About Divorcing America," Foreign Policy, February 26, 2020.

Quinta Jurecic and Benjamin Wittes, "Trump's Most Dangerous Destruction," Atlantic, February 25, 2020.

Charles Kenny, "The Case for Closing the Pentagon," Politico, February 25, 2020.

Keith Johnson, "What Trump Really Doesn't Get About Trade," Foreign Policy, February 24, 2020.

Walter Russell Mead, "Does the Arc of History Bend Toward Idlib?" Wall Street Journal, February 24, 2020.

James Jay Carafano, "Donald Trump: A Great Decision Maker?" National Interest, February 23, 2020.

Ted Galen Carpenter, "How Barack Obama's Good 'Intentions' Destroyed Libya," National Interest, February 23, 2020.

Uri Friedman, "What Democrats Aren't Admitting About Trump's Record," Atlantic, February 22, 2020.

Kevin Baron, "The West Can't Even Agree on Itself, Much Less China," Defense One, February 21, 2020.

Elisabeth Braw, "Will American Firms Put America First?" Foreign Policy, February 21, 2020.

Doug Bandow, "Will the 2020 Candidates End Our Pointless Wars?" American Conservative, February 20, 2020.

Theodore Bromund, "The United States Should Withdraw from the U.N.'s Programme of Action on Small Arms," Heritage Foundation, February 20, 2020.

Agence France-Presse, "Despite Trade Wars, Trump Says US 'Open for Business,'" Agence France-Presse, February 19, 2020.

Hal Brands, "From Japan to Britain, the World Loves Hosting U.S. Troops," Bloomberg, February 19, 2020.

Jeff M. Smith, "Rising Above the Fray: The Trump-Modi Chapter in India-U.S. Relations," Heritage Foundation, February 19, 2020.

Olivia Enos, "Why the U.S. Government Should Prioritize the Release of Christian Pastor Wang Yi," Heritage Foundation, February 18, 2020.

Nile Gardiner, "Setting the Record Straight on American Leadership of the West," Heritage Foundation, February 18, 2020.

David J. Lynch, "Trump's Recent Trade Moves Show Adversarial Approach Has Only Just Begun," Washington Post, February 18, 2020.

Uri Friedman, "American Is Alone in Its Cold War With China," Atlantic, February 17, 2020.

Joel Gehrke, "'It Is Dangerous': France's Macron Startles Allies and Angers US Officials with Defense Proposals," Washington Examiner, February 17, 2020.

Walter Russell Mead, "Europeans Try to Have It Both Ways," Wall Street Journal, February 17, 2020.

Gideon Rachman, "Donald Trump's Erratic Style of Diplomacy Has a Price," Financial Times, February 17, 2020.

Doug Bandow, "Time to Drop Defense Guarantees to the Philippines," American Spectator, February 16, 2020.

Michael Birnbaum, Loveday Morris, and John Hudson, "Europe Is Watching the U.S. Presidential Campaign—and Holding Its Breath About Trump and Sanders," Washington Post, February 16, 2020.

Yasmeen Abutaleb and Josh Dawsey, "Trump's Soft Touch with China's Xi Worries Advisers Who Say More Is Needed to Combat Coronavirus Outbreak," Washington Post, February 16, 2020.

Noah Barkin, "The U.S. and Europe Are Speaking a Different Language on China," Foreign Policy, February 16, 2020.

Michael Birnbaum, John Hudson, and Loveday Morris, "At Munich Security Conference, an Atlantic Divide: U.S. Boasting and European Unease," Washington Post, February 15, 2020.

Robin Emmott and John Irish, "'The West Is Winning,' U.S. Tells China; France Wary," Reuters, February 15, 2020.

Michelle Fitzpatrick, "US, Europe Clash over Washington's Global Retreat," Agence France-Presse, February 15, 2020.

David E. Sanger and Steven Erlanger, "'The West Is Winning,' Pompeo Said. The West Wasn't Buying It." New York Times, February 15, 2020.

Nancy A Youssef, James Marson, and Laurence Norman, "U.S.-Europe Divide Gets Spotlight at Security Conference," Wall Street Journal, February 14, 2020.

Robert Burns, "While US Worries About China, Europe Stays Focused on Russia," Associated Press, February 13, 2020.

Tarun Chhabra, Scott Moore, and Dominic Tierney, "The Left Should Play the China Card; Foreign Policy Rivalry Inspires Progress at Home," Foreign Affairs, February 13, 2020.

Walter Lohman, "Let's Keep Our Nerve on U.S.-Philippines Relations," Heritage Foundation, February 13, 2020.

Josh Rogin, "The U.S. and Europe Are Headed for A Showdown on China in Munich," Washington Post, February 13, 2020.

Edward Wong, "US. Faces Tough 'Great Game' Against China in Central Asia and Beyond," New York Times, February 13, 2020.

Noah Bierman and staff writer, "White House Quietly Trims Dozens of National Security Experts," Los Angeles Times, February 12, 2020.

Hal Brands, "Yes, Ukraine Matters to the U.S.," Bloomberg, February 12, 2020.

Michael Brenes and Michael Franczak, "2 East Ways to Shrink America's Overseas Footprint," Foreign Policy, February 11, 2020.

Michael Fullilove, "How I Lost My Faith in America, The World Still Wants to Believe in the U.S. But It Needs Some Help." Atlantic, February 11, 2020.

Josh Rogin, "State Department Excludes Taiwan from Religious Freedom Alliance," Washington Post, February 11, 2020.

Brett D. Schaefer and James Jay Carafano, "U.S. Shouldn't Rejoin U.N. 'Tourism' Agency, Despite Trump's Budget Request," Heritage Foundation, February 11, 2020.

Chris Walsh, "Why US Democracy Support Matters," The Hill, February 11, 2020.

Graham Allison, "The New Spheres of Influence, Sharing the Globe with Other Great Powers," Foreign Affairs, February 10, 2020.

Kathleen Hicks, "Getting to Less, The Truth About Defense Spending," Foreign Affairs, February 10, 2020.

Stephen D. Krasner, "Learning to Live With Despots, The Limits of Democracy Protection," Foreign Affairs, February 10, 2020.

Bonnie Kristian, "Donald Trump's Erratic Foreign Policy Is a Failure," National Interest, February 10, 2020.

Stephen Wertheim, "The Price of Primacy, Why America Shouldn't Dominate the World," Foreign Affairs, February 10, 2020.

Thomas Wright, "The Folly of Retrenchment, Why America Can't Withdraw From the World," Foreign Affairs, February 10, 2020.

Hal Brands, "John Quincy Adams Isn't Who You Think He Is, The Sixth President Has Become an Icon for Those Wanting to Shrink America's Global Role, But He Was Actually A Die-Hard Expansionist," Bloomberg, February 8, 2020.

William J. Burns, "Impunity Is Triumphing Over Integrity, Trump's Attacks on Public Servants Will Do Lasting Damage to American Diplomacy," Atlantic, February 8, 2020.

Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani, "Tough Talk, Candor and Resilience Are Admired in My Country. The President Is Perceived to Have These Traits," Washington Post, February 7, 2020.

Joel Simon, "How Trump Has Reversed Decades of American Hostage Policy," New Yorker, February 7, 2020.

Doug Bandow, "Our Military Is Clashing with Russians While Defending Syrian Oil. Why?" American Conservative, February 6, 2020.

Josh Rogin, "Trump's Foreign Policy Is All Politics, No Policy," Washington Post, February 6, 2020.

Ruby Mellen and Siobhán O'Grady, "How Trump's State of the Union Addressed Foreign Policy," Washington Post, February 6 (posted online February 5), 2019.

Ted Galen Carpenter, "Trump's Brass Knuckles Tactics Toward the European Allies," Cato Institute, February 5, 2020.

Daniel W. Drezner, "Donald Trump's Potemkin Foreign Policy," Washington Post, February 5, 2020.

Robbie Gramer, "At Embassies Abroad, Trump Envoys Are Quietly Pushing Out Career Diplomats," Foreign Policy, February 5, 2020.

Mollie Hemingway, "13 Key Takeaways From President Trump's Epic State Of The Union Address," Federalist, February 5, 2020.

Michael Hirsh, Amy Mackinnon, and Robbie Gramer, "5 Foreign-Policy Takeaways from Trump's State of the Union," Foreign Policy, February 5, 2020.

Daniel R. DePetris, "Impeachment Is Damaging America In One Nearly Forgotten Way, Two Words: Foreign Policy," National Interest, February 4, 2020.

John Gans, "Trump Finally Has the Dangerous Foreign-Policy Process He Always Wanted," Foreign Policy, February 4, 2020.

Alex Hobson, "An Eye for an Eye Doesn't Make Americans Safer," Foreign Policy, February 4, 2020.

Adam Taylor, "What Trump Said About Foreign Policy in Last Year's State of the Union (and What Actually Happened)," Washington Post, February 4, 2020.

Kathy Gilsinan, "Iraq Is the One War Zone Trump Doesn't Want to Leave," Atlantic, February 3, 2020.

Michael Hirsh, "Berned Beyond Recognition: How Sander's Rise Changes U.S. Foreign Policy," Foreign Policy, February 3, 2020.

Casey Michel, "How the US Became the Center of Global Kleptocracy," Vox, February 3, 2020.

Caleb Slayton, "Africa: The First U.S. Casualty of the New Information Warfare Against China," War on the Rocks, February 3, 2020.

Alex Ward, "Why Trump's Acquittal Will Damage US Foreign Policy," Vox, February 3, 2020.

Stefano Gennarini and Grace Melton, "Promises Kept: The Trump Administration Has Paved the Way for Promoting the Culture of Life," National Interest, February 2, 2020.

A. Trevor Thrall and Jordan Cohen, "Trump Extends Travel Ban to 6 Countries — but Is OK with Selling Arms to Those Same Places," Cato Institute, January 31, 2020.

Doug Bandow, "Trump Ignores the Saudis' Awful Record on Religious Freedom," Cato Institute, January 30, 2020.

Tom Rogan, "Why China Is a Bigger Threat Than the Soviet Union," Washington Examiner, January 30, 2020.

Michael Krepon, "The Long-Term Costs of NATO Expansion," National Interest, January 29, 2020.

Ali Wyne and Michael J. Mazarr, "The Real US-China Competition: Competing Theories of Influence," Interpreter, January 29, 2020.

Robert Malley and Aaron David Miller, "The Real Goal of Trump's Middle East Plan," Politico, January 28, 2020.

Doug Bandow, "Stop Treating U.S. Military as Mercenary Force Hired Out to Protect Saudi Royals," American Spectator, January 24, 2020.

Doug Bandow, "Trump is Right: Afghanistan is a 'Loser War,'" American Conservative, January 23, 2020.

Ted Galen Carpenter, "Trump's Critics Show Their Own Sterile Thinking about Foreign Policy," National Interest, January 23, 2020.

James Phillips, "The Suleimani Strike: The Right Call to Make," Heritage Foundation, January 23, 2020.

Jeff M. Smith, "Is America On the Decline And Ceding Its Position to China in Asia?" National Interest, January 21, 2020.

Doug Bandow, "Donald Trump's Iran Obsession Comes Down to 2 Words: Barack Obama," National Interest, January 20, 2020.

Steven A. Cook, "Outrage Culture Is Ruining Foreign Policy," Foreign Policy, January 20, 2020.

Niall Ferguson, "Cold War II Has America at a Disadvantage as China Courts Russia," Boston Globe, January 20, 2020.

Anatol Klass, "Did the United States Just Bless Chinese Authoritarianism?" Washington Post, January 20, 2020.

Dimitri Simes, "The Rift Between Turkey and America Has Paved the Way for Russia's Rebound," National Interest, January 20, 2020.

Anne Gearan and John Hudson, "Trump's Strong-Arm Foreign Policy Tactics Create Tensions with U.S. Friends and Foes," Washington Post, January 19, 2020.

Robert D. Kaplan, "Why the U.S.-China Cold War Will Be Different," National Interest, January 19, 2020.

William Saletan, "Trump Is a Remorseless Advocate of Crimes Against Humanity," Slate, January 18, 2020.

Ted Galen Carpenter, "In Bullying Iraq, America is Starting to Look Like the New Evil Empire," American Conservative, January 17, 2020.

Tom McTague, "Donald Trump Stumbles Into a Foreign-Policy Triumph," Atlantic, January 17, 2019.

David Von Drehle, "Trump's Mercenary Foreign Policy Confirms What Our Worst Critics Say of Us," Washington Post, January 17, 2020.

Doug Bandow, "Note to Trump: Iraq is Not a U.S. Colony," American Conservative, January 16, 2020.

Hal Brands, "Does U.S. Credibility Matter? Trump Is Putting It to the Test," Bloomberg, January 16, 2020.

Robbie Gramer, "Pompeo's Silence Creates a 'Crisis of Morale' at State Department," Foreign Policy, January 16, 2020.

Claes G. Ryn, "Donald J. Trump and the 'America First' Fairy Tale," National Interest, January 16, 2020.

Bob Davis, "U.S.-China Deal Could Upend the Way Nations Settle Disputes," Wall Street Journal, January 16, 2020.

Jonathan Stearns, "Europe Threatens Legal Challenge to U.S.-China Trade Pact at WTO," Bloomberg, January 16, 2020.

Bruce Stokes, "Trump's Growing European Base," Foreign Policy, January 16, 2020.

Matthew Bodner, "What Was Russia's Putin Up To After the Death of Iran's Soleimani?" Defense News, January 15, 2020.

Max Boot, "These 7 Impulses Explain Trump's Inexplicable Foreign Policy," Washington Post, January 15, 2020.

Douglas London, "The President, His Relationship with Intelligence, and the Soleimani Strike," Just Security, January 15, 2020.

Ashley Parker, "New Book Portrays Trump as Erratic, 'At Times Dangerously Uninformed,'" Washington Post, January 15, 2020.

Asli Aydintasbas, "This Is Putin's World Now," Washington Post, January 14, 2020.

Ted Galen Carpenter, "Putin's Russia Is Not the Soviet Union Reborn," National Interest, January 14, 2020.

Thomas L. Friedman, "Trump's Code of Dishonor," New York Times, January 14, 2020.

Paul McCleary, "China, Russia Press For Mideast Gains While US Talks Of Withdrawal," Breaking Defense, January 14, 2020.

Elizabeth Rosenberg and Neil Bhatiya, "Trump Has Made Sanctions a Path to Strikes," Foreign Policy, January 14, 2020.

Doug Bandow, "Why NATO to the Middle East Is A Really Bad Idea," The Hill, January 13, 2020.

Isaac Chatiner, "Andrew Bacevich on U.S. Foreign Policy Mistakes," New Yorker, January 13, 2020.

Alan W. Dowd, "NATO And America's Alliances Are A Good Deal For The American People," National Interest, January 13, 2020.

Peter Harris, "Trump's War of Choice with Iran," National Interest, January 13, 2020.

Ron Huisken, "US-China Rivalry and the Future of Interdependence," Strategist, January 13, 2020.

Kay C. James, "Congress' Personal Disdain for Trump Impedes National Security," Washington Times, January 13, 2020.

Walter Russell Mead, "Freedom Stages a Comeback, Even When Officials Push Realpolitik, the U.S. Remains a Beacon of Liberty to the World," Wall Street Journal, January 13, 2020.

David Nakamura, "Muted on Hong Kong Demonstrations, Trump Showers Support on Iranian Protestors and Seeks to Score Points on Democrats," Washington Post, January 13, 2020.

Stuart Schrader, "The Global Policeman Will Always Shoot People," Foreign Policy, January 13, 2020.

Stephen N. Walt, "Why Is the United States So Bad at Foreign Policy?" Foreign Policy, January 13, 2020.

Amy Zegart, "The Race for Big Ideas Is On, The United States Faces Genuinely New Global Challenges—But Tries to Understand Them Using Outmoded Theories from a Bygone Era," Atlantic, January 13, 2020.

Paul Sonne, Greg Jaffe, and Josh Dawsey, "Killing Soleimani Reflects an Aggressive National Security Team Not Inclined to Curb Trump," Washington Post, January 12, 2020.

Hans A. von Spakovsky, "Hans von Spakovsky: Trump killing of Soleimani and Action Against Iran Legal—Despite Democratic Complaints" Fox News, January 11, 2020.

Nikolas K. Gvosdev, "The Carter Doctrine Conundrum: Has Trump Repudiated a Foundational Element of U.S. National Security Strategy?" National Interest, January 10, 2020.

Andrew Sullivan, "Donald Trump Is the War Crimes President," New York, January 10, 2019.

Benjamin Denison, "Regime change rarely succeeds. When will the U.S. learn?" Washington Post, January 9, 2020.

Marc Fisher, "For Trump, Foreign Relationships Aren't About Strategy. They're About Cash." Washington Post, January 9, 2020.

David Mednicoff, "The US-Iran Conflict and the Consequences of International Law-Breaking," The Conversation, January 9, 2020.

Clark Packard, "Trump's Real Trade War Is Being Waged on the WTO," Foreign Policy, January 9, 202.

Jim Webb, "When Did It Become Acceptable to Kill a Top Leader of a Country We Aren't Even at War With?" Washington Post, January 9, 2020.

Edward Wong, "Trump Administration's Actions in Middle East Complicate Its Criticisms of China," New York Times, January 9, 2020.

James Freeman, "A Reagan Revival in Trump's Foreign Policy?" Wall Street Journal, January 8, 2020.

Harold Hongju Koh, "Is Preemptive Assassination the New Trump Doctrine?" Foreign Policy, January 8, 2020.

Klaus W. Larres, "Trump Asks NATO Allies for Help with Iran after years of Bashing the Alliance," The Conversation, January 8, 2020.

Paul R. Pillar, "Making America Rogue Again," National Interest, January 8, 2020.

Andrew Prokop, "Dominance and Reputation: How Trump Thinks About Iran," Vox, January 8, 2020.

David Sacks, "Suleimani's Assassination Marks the Death of the Trump Administration's Realism," National Interest, January 8, 2020.

Elizabeth Cobbs and Kimberly C. Field, "Why Did the U.S. Kill Suleimani? The Attack Illustrates America's Lack of a Clear Grand Strategy—and Why We Need One Immediately," New York Times, January 7, 2020.

David A. Graham, "The Iranian Humiliation Trump Is Trying to Avenge," Atlantic, January 7, 2020.

Tiana Lowe, "Trump's Strike on Qassem Soleimani Did Put 'America First,'" Washington Examiner, January 7, 2020.

Jack Shafer, "Trump's Maybe War with Iran, Faced with a Foreign Crisis, the President Wants Everyone to Know He Might Do Something. But Also That He Might Not." Politico, January 7, 2020.

Tyler Cowen, "War Crimes? That's Not How to Deter Iran, Even Assassinating Military Leaders Is Bad for America's Long-Term Interests," Bloomberg, January 6, 2020.

Charlie Dunlap, "Would Attacking Sites 'Important' to 'Iranian Culture' Be a 'War Crime'? (Not Always)," Lawfire, January 6, 2020.

Milton Ezrati, "America Should Not Psych Itself Out Over China's Rise," National Interest, January 6, 2020.

Max Fisher, "What Is Trump's Iran Strategy? Few Seem to Know," New York Times, January 6, 2020.

Farah N. Jan and Justin Melnick, "China's Challenge to America's Political and Economic Liberal Order," National Interest, January 6, 2020.

Paul Krugman, "Trump the Intimidator Fails Again," New York Times, January 6, 2020.

Walter Russell Mead, "Pompeo Explains the Iran Policy," Wall Street Journal, January 6, 2020.

Evan Osnos, "The Future of America's Contest with China," New Yorker, January 6, 2020.

Thomas Spoehr, "Reputations and Respect Are Earned by Action, Not Talk," Daily Signal, January 6, 2020.

Thomas Spoehr, "War with Iran? Some People Think We're Already in One. They're Wrong," Washington Examiner, January 6, 2020.

Lara Jakes, "Defenders of History Take Aim at Trump's Threat to Strike Iran's Cultural Sites," New York Times, January 5 (updated January 6), 2020.

Greg Miller, "Trump Faces Iran Crisis with Fewer Experienced Advisors and Strained Relations with Traditional Allies," Washington Post, January 5, 2020.

Doug Bandow, "Donald Trump's Iran Policy Comes Down to One Word: Chaos," National Interest, January 4, 2020.

Christopher Bedford, "Killing Soleimani Was The Right Move, And Shows Precisely Why It's Time To Leave Iraq," Federalist, January 4, 2020.

Eliot A. Cohen, "Trump Is Playing Chess One Turn at a Time, An Impulsive President Tries to Look Tough without Being Prepared to Follow Through," Atlantic, January 4, 2020.

James Phillips, "How US Strike Against Iranian General Changes Rules of Game in Iraq, Region," Daily Signal, January 4, 2020.

Stephen M. Walt, "Trump's Iran Policy Is Brain-Dead," Foreign Policy, January 3, 2020.

Chris [Christopher] Preble and John Glaser, "Trump Stokes Endless War: His Attack on an Iranian Military Leader Will Come Back to Haunt Him and Us," New York Daily News, January 3, 2020.

Jennifer Rubin, "Trump Has Raised Strategic Incoherence to New Levels with Soleimani's Killing," Washington Post, January 3, 2020.

Ben Westcott, "There's Talk of a New Cold War. But China Is Not the Soviet Union," CNN, January 3, 2020.

Fred Kaplan, "Trump Is Clueless on Iran and North Korea," Slate, January 2, 2020.

Jeff Stein, "How Russia Saw Trump: 'A Potential Asset and an Exploitable Victim,'" Washington Post, January 2, 2019. (Book review of Malcolm Nance, The Plot to Betray America, Hachette, 2019, 358 pp.)

Elbridge A. Colby and A. Wess Mitchell, "The Age of Great-Power Competition," Foreign Affairs, January/February 2020.

Kathleen H. Hicks and Joseph P. Federici, Getting to Less? Exploring the Press for Less in America's Defense Commitments, Center for Strategic and International Studies, January 2020, 9 pp.

Doug Bandow, "America's Lawmakers Keep Writing Blank Checks for Foreign Wars," National Interest, December 30, 2019.

Doug Bandow, "Does Congress Hate America?" National Interest, December 30, 2019.

James Jay Carafano, "James Carafano: US airstrikes in Mideast—Sending This Clear Message to Friends and Foes Alike," Fox News, December 30, 2019.

Derek Leebaert, "Postwar Delusions: Why America Keeps Making Mistakes Abroad," National Interest, December 25, 2019.

Brahma Chellaney, "Laboring Under the Illusion of a Rules-Based Global Order," Japan Times, December 23, 2019.

Keith Johnson, "Trump Turns Global Trade Upside Down," Foreign Policy, December 23, 2019.

Walter Russell Mead, "Pompeo Champions the Faithful," Wall Street Journal, December 23, 2019.

Park Chan-kyong, "As Seoul Loses Faith in Trump's Approach on North Korea, China Is Poised to Step In," South China Morning Post, December 22, 2019.

George Beebe, "Groupthink Resurgent," National Interest, December 22, 2019.

Jamey Keaten and Matthew Lee, "As Trump Shuns US Multilateralism, China Ups Diplomatic Ante," Associated Press, December 20, 2019.

Shane Harris, Josh Dawsey, and Carol D. Leonnig, "Former White House Officials Say They Feared Putin Influenced the President's Views on Ukraine and 2016 Campaign," Washington Post, December 19, 2019.

Mary Jo Murphy, "Trump Countries," Washington Post, December 19, 2019.

Doug Bandow, "The Tragedy of Donald Trump: His Presidency Is Marred with Failure," National Interest, December 18, 2019.

Paul R. Pillar, "Misguided Wars: Lying Isn't the Main Problem," National Interest, December 18, 2019.

Seth Cropsey and Gary Roughead, "A U.S. Withdrawal Will Cause a Power Struggle in the Middle East," Foreign Policy, December 17, 2019.

Lara Jakes, "Why the State Dept. Has Largely Been Muted on India's Moves Against Muslims," New York Times, December 17, 2019.

Steven Keil, "Trans-Atlantic Relations a la Macron Could Make NATO's Brain Death a Self-fulfilling Prophecy," Defense News, December 17, 2019.

Ali Demirdas, "Does Russia Have Red Lines in Syria? And Will Donald Trump's Decision to Withdraw American Troops Going to [sic] Usher in An Era of Endless Russian Wars?" National Interest, December 16, 2019.

Uri Friedman, "Under Trump, the U.S. Has Become a Leading Source of Global Instability," Atlantic, December 16, 2019.

Fred Kaplan, "The Decade Big Power Politics Returned," Slate, December 16, 2019.

Bruce Klingner, Jung Pak, and Sue Mi Terry, "Opinion: Trump Shakedowns Are Threatening Two Key U.S. Alliances in Asia," Los Angeles Times, December 16, 2019.

Robert B. Zoellick, "Impeachable or Not, Trump's Foreign Policy Is Reckless," Wall Street Journal, December 16, 2019.

Matthew Continetti, "Present at the Demolition, The Post-WWII Order Is Ending—and Nothing Has Replaced It," National Review, December 14, 2019.

Hal Brands, Steven A. Cook, and Kenneth M. Pollack, "RIP the Carter Doctrine, 1980-2019, Donald Trump Has Torn Up a Foundation of U.S. Foreign Policy and Is Causing Irreparable Damage to the Middle East—and World Order—in the Process," Foreign Policy, December 13, 2019.

Derek Chollet, "An Inside Look at Trump's Foreign Policy: 'This Is Literally Insane,'" Washington Post, December 13, 2019. (Book review of Peter Bergen, Trump and His Generals, The Cost of Chaos, Penguin Press, 2019, 386 pp.)

Olivia Enos, "Codifying Religious Freedom as a U.S. Foreign Policy Priority," Heritage Foundation, December 13, 2019.

Samuel Moyn and Stephen Wertheim, "The Infinity War, We Say We're a Peaceful Nation. Why Do Our Leaders Always Keep Us at War?" Washington Post, December 13, 2019.

Anne Applebaum, "The False Romance of Russia," Atlantic, December 12, 2019.

Eli Ratner, Elizabeth Rosenberg, and Paul Scharre, "Beyond the Trade War, A Competitive Approach to Countering China," Foreign Affairs, December 12, 2019.

James Jay Carafano, "NATO After London: How Germany and the United States Can Lead the Alliance," Heritage Foundation, December 11, 2019.

Luke Coffey, "NATO Still Plays an Important Russian Resistance Role," Heritage Foundation, December 11, 2019.

Hal Brands, "U.S. Bets Old Ideas in a New Package Can Deter China," Bloomberg, December 11, 2019.

Kevin Baron, "'Are You in This?' If So Many Americans Believe Russia Is an Ally, China Is a Good Business Partner, and Terrorism Isn't Worth Fighting Anymore, How Can the United States Be Counted on for Global Security?" Defense One, December 10, 2019.

Ali Demirdas, "Is France Making a Power Play By Questioning the Value of NATO?" National Interest, December 10, 2019.

John Glaser and Christopher A. Preble, "High Anxiety: How Washington's Exaggerated Sense of Danger Harms Us All," Cato Institute, December 10, 2019.

Michael Hirsh, "Why Putin Is Smiling," Foreign Policy, December 10, 2019.

Keith Johnson, "How Trump May Finally Kill the WTO," Foreign Policy, December 9, 2019.

Colum Lynch and Robbie Gramer, "Desperate to Save Diplomacy, White House Blocks U.N. Meeting on North Korean Atrocities," Foreign Policy, December 9, 2019.

Sumantra Maitra, "NATO's Troubles Are Not Going Away After Trump," Federalist, December 9, 2019.

William J. Burns, "An End to Magical Thinking in the Middle East," Atlantic, December 8, 2019.

Christopher A. Preble, "A Useful Corrective to China Fearmongering," Cato Institute, December 6, 2019.

Doug Bandow, "NATO No Longer Serves American Interests," National Interest, December 5, 2019.

Peter Bergen, "The Generals Tried to Keep Trump in Check. What Happens to Foreign Policy Now That They've Left?" Time, December 5, 2019.

James Jay Carafano, "Trump at NATO Summit—There Is Nothing New About Elitists Trashing Presidents," Heritage Foundation, December 5, 2019.

Ryan Heath, "Breaking Down Trump's Post-NATO Hot Spots," Politico, December 5, 2019.

Michael Moran, "What Trump Gets Right About Alliances," Foreign Policy, December 5, 2019.

Jim Townsend and Andrea Kendall-Taylor, "NATO Is Struggling Under Trans-Atlantic Tensions," Foreign Policy, December 5, 2019.

Nicholas Burns, "Trump Violates Diplomacy's Golden Rule, At the NATO Summit, the President Publicly Heaped Abuse on America's Closest Friends," Atlantic, December 4, 2019.

James Jay Carafano, "NATO, Macron, and Trump—Why This Meeting Is Already Different," Heritage Foundation, December 4, 2019.

Ted Galen Carpenter, "NATO's Dirty Little Secret Is Out," National Interest, December 4, 2019.

Steven A. Cook, "Pompeo's Departure Is Restoring the State Department's Swagger," Foreign Policy, December 4, 2019.

The Editors, "NATO Is Still Essential," National Review, December 4, 2019.

Jim Geraghty, "There's No Excuse for NATO Allies Not Meeting That 2 Percent Threshold," National Review, December 4, 2019.

Aamer Madhani (Associated Press), "Trump Aims for Role of NATO Statesman But Mars Unity Message," Military Times, December 4, 2019.

Tom McTague, "The Spiritual Disunity of the West," Atlantic, December 4, 2019.

Philip Stephens, "Crisis, What Crisis? The US Needs NATO As Much As Ever," Financial Times, December 4, 2019.

Conrad Black, "Trump's NATO Successes," National Review, December 3, 2019.

Hal Brands, "Macron Wants to Lead Europe. Why Would Europe Want That?" Bloomberg, December 3, 2019.

Kevin Baron, "NATO's Newest Threat Is Coming From Inside the House," Defense One, December 3, 2019.

Samuel Brannon, "Bad Idea: China-Driven U.S. Strategy," Center for Strategic and International Studies, December 3, 2019.

James Jay Carafano, "Be Thankful America Is Not Fighting 'Endless Wars,'" Heritage Foundation, December 3, 2019.

Ted Galen Carpenter, "NATO Summit 2019: The Remnants of a 'Zombie Alliance,'" Cato Institute, December 3, 2019.

Stephen Collinson and Caitlin Hu, "The Most Powerful Destabilizing Force Facing NATO Today," CNN, December 3, 2019.

Nancy Cook, "Disruptor in chief Trump bulldozes into NATO gathering," Politico, December 3, 2019.

Daniel L. Davis, "Russia Is Not The Soviet Union. So Why Can't Europe Help Pay More for NATO?" National Interest, December 3, 2019.

Victor Davis Hanson, "Trump's Foreign Policy: The Popping Point of Maximum Pressure," National Review, December 3, 2019.

David M. Herszenhorn Nancy Cook, and Rym Momtaz, "Now Playing in London: The Donald [Trump] and Emmanuel [Macron] Show," Politico, December 3, 2019.

Mark Hannah, "It's Not Just Trump. The American People Are Skeptical of NATO, Too." Politico, December 3, 2019.

David M. Herszenhorn and Rym Momtaz, "Allies Unite to Defend NATO—Against Macron," Politico, December 3, 2019.

Julia Ioffe, "Trump Is Waging War on America's Diplomats," GQ, December 3, 2019.

Simone McCarthy, "China and Russia forge deeper ties thanks to their common enemy: the United States," South China Morning Post, December 3, 2019.

Toluse Olorunnipa, "'Everybody Wants to Make a Deal': Struggling to Negotiate, Trump Often Claims Countries Are Eager to Talk," Washington Post, December 3, 2019.

Katie Rogers and Annie Karni, "In Tense Exchange, Trump and Macron Put Forth Dueling Visions for NATO," New York Times, December 3, 2019.

Julianne Smith and Garima Mohan, "The Trump Administration's Indo-Pacific Strategy Needs Proof of Life," National Interest, December 3, 2019.

Alex Ward, "Trump Thinks NATO Is Good Now—After Macron Criticized It," Vox, December 3, 2019.

Robin Emmott, Steve Holland, "Trump Lashes Out at European Allies Ahead of NATO Anniversary Summit," Reuters, December 2, 2019.

Frida Ghitis, "NATO Is Agreeing Not to Agree in the Age of Trump," Politico, December 2, 2019.

Melvyn P. Leffler, "China Isn't the Soviet Union. Confusing the Two Is Dangerous," Atlantic, December 2, 2019.

James Marson, "NATO Meeting Overshadowed by France's Macron," Wall Street Journal, December 2, 2019.

Tom Rogan, "Sensing NATO Discord, Putin Plays Macron Off Trump," Washington Examiner, December 2, 2019.

Robin Wright, "Trump Is Running Out of Time for a Meaningful Diplomatic Deal—Anywhere," New Yorker, December 2, 2019.

Hilde Eliassen Restad, "Whither the 'City Upon a Hill'? Donald Trump, America First, and American Exceptionalism," Texas National Security Review, December 2019.

Michael Brendan Dougherty, "We Aid the Growth of Chinese Tyranny to Our Eternal Shame," National Review, November 29, 2019.

Peter Harris, "Why Trump's Drone War Shows He Wants American Global Supremacy," National Interest, November 28, 2019.

"It's the End of the World Trade Organisation As We Know It, And America Feels Fine," Economist, November 28, 2019.

Ted Galen Carpenter, "The Rationale and Contours of an Amicable Transatlantic Security Divorce," Cato Institute, November 27, 2019.

Adam Serwer, "The War-Crimes President," Atlantic, November 27, 2019.

Rebeccah Heinrichs, "Mike Pompeo Is 'Keenly Aware' of the Threats Posed by China," National Review, November 26, 2019.

Bruce Klingner, "Don't Break Alliances Over Money," Heritage Foundation, November 26, 2019.

David Marcus, "Why Trump Marks The End Of The Post-Cold-War Period," Federalist, November 25, 2019.

Kristin Tate, "Negative American Trends Open Door to Chinese World Influence," The Hill, November 24, 2019.

Deborah Pearlstein, "Foreign Policy Isn't Just Up To Trump," Atlantic, November 23, 2019.

Daniel Sneider, "Ripple Effects of US Retreat in NE Asia," Asia Times, November 23, 2019.

Tim Roemer, "The U.S. Trade War Has Caught Beijing's Attention. Now Washington Needs a Longer-Term Plan." Foreign Policy, November 22, 2019.

Michael Moran, "Recognizing Israeli Settlements Marks the Final Collapse of Pax Americana," Foreign Policy, November 22, 2019.

Jay Nordlinger, "Moral Equivalence, Etc.," National Review, November 22, 2019.

James Palmer, "Donald Trump's America Can't Fight Xi Jinping's China," Foreign Policy, November 22, 2019.

Ted Galen Carpenter, "Trump's Bold East Asia Defense Financial Burden-Sharing Campaign," National Interest, November 21, 2019.

Uri Friedman, "America Hasn't Always Supported Ukraine Like This," Atlantic, November 21, 2019.

Nancy A. Youssef and Andrew Jeong, "The U.S.'s Quest for Military Unity on China Comes Up Short in Asia," Wall Street Journal, November 21, 2019.

James Jay Carafano and Riley Walters, "The Difference Between National Security and Foreign Competition," Heritage Foundation, November 20, 2019.

Carol Morello, "Skepticism Runs Deep at NATO as Pompeo Meets with Allies," Washington Post, November 20, 2019.

Hal Brands, "Europe and America Are Refighting the Cold War, and Both Can Win," Bloomberg, November 19, 2019.

Brett D. Schaefer, "Putting the U.S. Role in the U.N. Funding Crunch Into Context," Heritage Foundation, November 19, 2019.

Joel Gehrke, "'Our Worst Nightmare:' Lithuanian Officials Alarmed That Trump May Party with Putin," Washington Examiner, November 18, 2019.

Yomiuri Shimbun, "Political Scientist Ian Bremmer: American-led Order Is Over," Japan News, November 18, 2019.

William J. Burns, "Trump's Bureaucratic Arson," Atlantic, November 17, 2019.

Fred Hiatt, "While Trump Stands By, the World's Tyrants Are Trying to Make the World Safe for Dictatorship," Washington Post, November 17, 2019.

Abraham Newman and Daniel Nexon, "If the United States Doesn't Make The Rules, China Will," Foreign Policy, November 17, 2019.

Reza Hasmath and Jennifer Y.J. Hsu, "How Chinese Norms Are Going Global," Diplomat, November 16, 2019.

Daniel F. Runde, "Countering Malign Kremlin Influence Will Be with Us for Decades," The Hill, November 15, 2019.

Luke Baker, "On Russia and EU Enlargement, Macron Pushes a Radical Agenda," Reuters, November 14, 2019.

Uri Friedman, "What America's Allies Really Think About Trump's Syria Decision," Atlantic, November 14, 2019.

Daniel Kochis, "The Future of the Transatlantic Partnership in an Era of Great Power Competition," Heritage Foundation, November 14, 2019.

Conrad Black, "A Post-Post-Cold-War NATO," National Review, November 13, 2019.

Daniel DePetris, "3 Major Reforms NATO Needs To Keep From Collapsing," Federalist, November 13, 2019.

Sumantra Maitra, "French President Emmanuel Macron Gets Trumpian On NATO," Federalist, November 13, 2019.

Nick Danforth and Daphne McCurdy, "The United States Can't Have It All," Foreign Policy, November 12, 2019.

David Ignatius, "People Died While Trump Played Games with Ukraine's Military Aid," Washington Post, November 12, 2019.

Stephanie Ruhle and Carol E. Lee, "In Private Speech, Bolton Suggests Some of Trump's Foreign Policy Decisions Are Guided by Personal Interest," NBC News, November 12, 2019.

Walter Russell Mead, "NATO Isn't Dead, but It's Ailing," Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2019.

Nahal Toosi, "Trump's Plan to Shrink NSC Staff Draws Fire," Politico, November 11, 2019.

Nahal Toosi and Gabby Orr, "Trump Weighs Conditioning Foreign Aid on Religious Freedom," Politico, November 11, 2019.

Nikolas K. Gvosdev, "Can a 'Trumpian' Foreign Policy Stick?" National Interest, November 9, 2019.

Ariel Cohen, "America's Great-Power Problems Will Come Back to Haunt It in the Middle East," National Interest, November 8, 2019.

Jacob Heilbrunn, "Emmanuel Macron Is Right: NATO Is Over," Washington Post, November 8, 2019.

Mairead McArdle, "Pompeo: NATO Must Change or Risk Becoming 'Ineffective or Obsolete,'" National Review, November 8, 2019.

"Pompeo Attacks Russia and China in Berlin Speech," BBC News, November 8, 2019.

Kori Schake, "Why the U.S. Outplays France," Atlantic, November 8, 2019.

Kevin Baron, "Do Americans Still Want The US to Be the World's Security Leader?" Defense One, November 7, 2019.

James Carafano et al., "How and Why American Conservatives Must Fight for the Future of the Transatlantic Community," Heritage Foundation, November 7, 2019.

Gordon Chang, "The Great Confrontation With China," Wall Street Journal, November 7, 2019.

Daniel R. DePetris, "Trillion-Dollar Question: Will Donald Trump Really End the 'Endless Wars'?" National Interest, November 7, 2019.

Robin Emmott, "NATO Experiencing 'Brain Death', France's Macron Says," Reuters, November 7, 2019.

Michel Rose, "France's Macron Says NATO Suffering 'Brain Death', Questions U.S. Commitment," Reuters, November 7, 2019.

Adam Taylor, "Macron Says NATO Has Suffered 'Brain Death,' Merkel Rejects That Assessment as 'Drastic,'" Washington Post, November 7, 2019.

Ben Weingarten, "Pompeo: United States Fostered China's Rise "At The Expense Of American Value,'" Federalist, November 7, 2019.

Sylvie Corbet, "Europeans Look to China as Global Partner, Shun Trump's US," Associated Press, November 6, 2019.

Michael Singh, "Why the Talk of 'Endless Wars' Misses the Mark," Washington Post, November 6, 2019.

Colum Lynch, "Trump Turns U.S. Visas, Travel Restrictions Into Foreign-Policy Cudgel," Foreign Policy, November 6, 2019.

Yeganeh Torbati, "How Mike Pence's Office Meddled in Foreign Aid to Reroute Money to Favored Christian Groups," ProPublica, November 6, 2019.

Simon Denyer and Min Joo Kim, "In South Korea, Military Cost Dispute and Trump's Moves in Syria Fuel Doubts over U.S. Commitment," Washington Post, November 4, 2019.

Lara Seligman, "'Allies and Partners Will Think Twice Before Taking America at Its Words,'" Foreign Policy, November 4, 2019.

Thomas Wright, "The Yes-Men Have Taken Over the Trump Administration; As the President Has Freed Himself from the 'Adults,' He Has Also Weaponized American Foreign Policy for His Personal Advantage," Atlantic, November 4, 2019.

A. Trevor Thrall and John Glaser, "Will Trump End the Endless Wars?" Cato Institute, November 2, 2019.

Mark Bowden, "Top Military Officers Unload on Trump," Atlantic, November 2019.

Abe Greenwald, "The Failure at the End of History," Commentary, November 2019.

Department of State, "The China Challenge, Speech, Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary of State, New York City, New York, Hudson Institute's Herman Kahn Award Gala," October 30, 2019.

Max Boot, "In Syria and Elsewhere, Trump is Making Russia Great Again," Washington Post, October 30, 2019.

John Hannah, "U.S. Deterrence in the Middle East Is Collapsing," Foreign Policy, October 30, 2019.

Joseph Bosco, "Trump's Demand for Reciprocity with China Can Win 'Cold War II,'" The Hill, October 28, 2019.

James Jay Carafano, "James Carafano: Al-Baghdadi Is dead—Trump Was Proven Right on This One. So Now What?" Fox News, October 28, 2019.

Stephen N. Walt, "How to Tell if You're in a Good Alliance," Foreign Policy, October 28, 2019.

Uri Friedman, "Trump's Defiant Message to Washington: My Approach to Alliances Just Worked," Atlantic, October 27, 2019.

Brett McGurk, "Baghdadi's Death Underscores What We've Lost by Abandoning Syria's Kurds," Washington Post, October 27, 2019.

Jennifer Rubin, "Three Ways the Baghdadi Raid Undermines Trump's Chaotic Policy," Washington Post, October 27, 2019.

David E. Sanger, "Al-Baghdadi Raid Was a Victory Built on Factors Trump Derides," New York Times, October 27, 2019, updated October 28, 2019.

Salvatore Babones, "The United States Has Supplicants, Not Allies," National Interest, October 26, 2019.

Kathy Gilsinan, "What Was the Point of the Syria 'Withdrawal'?" Atlantic, October 25, 2019.

David J. Kramer and Richard Kauzlarich, "Why Mike Pompeo Must Go," Washington Post, October 25, 2019.

William Saletan, "Death Is Good; Trump's Sadistic Argument for Betraying the Kurds," Slate, October 25, 2019.

Gred Sargent, "As Trump Pulls Out of Syria, His Voters Are Following Along. That's Ominous." Washington Post, October 25, 2019.

Editorial Board, "Donald Trump's 'Very Special' Victory in Syria," New York Times, October 24, 2019.

James Jay Carafano, "Trump Prepares America for a Great Power Competition," National Interest, October 24, 2019.

Eliot A. Cohen, "Trump's Character Betrays Him; In Foreign Policy, Reputation Means Everything," Atlantic, October 24, 2019.

David Ignatius, "Russia Has Earned Its Success in the Middle East—Partly Thanks to Trump," Washington Post, October 24, 2019.

Jon Lerner, "What Is an 'Endless War'?" National Review, October 24, 2019.

Aamer Madhani and Robert Burns, "Analysis: Declaring Victory, Trump Strengthens Russia's Hand," Associated Press, October 24, 2019.

Edward Wong, "Pence Says U.S. Companies Leave 'Conscience at the Door' Over China," New York Times, October 24, 2019.

White House, "Remarks by Vice President Pence at the Frederic V. Malek Memorial Lecture, Conrad Hotel, Washington, D.C.," October 24, 2019.

Kevin Baron, "Trump Declares Victory in Syria, Claims Credit for It All," Defense One, October 23, 2019.

The Editors, "An Ignominious Retreat in Syria," National Review, October 23, 2019.

Uri Friedman, "The Consequences of Donald Trump Washing His Hands of the Middle East," Atlantic, October 23, 2019.

Lawrence J. Korb, "Trump's Ukraine troubles Overshadow His Foreign Policy Successes," National Interest, October 23, 2019.

Colum Lynch and Robbie Gramer, "Outfoxed and Outgunned: How China Routed the U.S. in a U.N. Agency," Foreign Policy, October 23, 2019.

Aamer Madhani and Deb Riechmann, "Trump Finds No Simple Fix in Syria, Other World Hotspots," Associated Press, October 23, 2019.

Christopher A. Preble and Doug Bandow, "Regarding the Tragedy in Northern Syria and the Need to Revisit U.S. Security Commitments," Cato Institute, October 23, 2019.

Alex Ward, "Trump's Latest Syria Announcement Is the Clearest Articulation of His Foreign Policy Doctrine," Vox, October 23, 2019.

Hal Brands, "Putin Conquered the Middle East. The U.S. Can Get It Back." Bloomberg, October 22, 2019.

Anne Gearan and David J. Lynch, "Trump Says He's the Dealmaker In Chief, But His Record Lists Mostly Incompletes," Washington Post, October 22, 2019.

Justin Logan and A. Trevor Thrall, "Make America Safe Again; The American Public Would Prefer a More Restrained Foreign Policy Than Elites Have Delivered in Past Decades," National Interest, October 22, 2019.

Jay Nordlinger, "Trump, Putin, Erdogan, Orbán," National Review, October 22, 2019.

Josh Rogin, "Trump Is Following the Mob, Not the Blob, on Foreign Policy," Washington Post, October 22, 2019.

Peter Baker, "For Trump the Dealmaker, Troop Pullouts Without Much in Return," New York Times, October 21, 2019 (updated October 22, 2019).

Stephen Blank, "The Russo-Chinese Alliance Emerges," The Hill, October 21, 2019.

James Jay Carafano, "Syria Cease-Fire Follows Completely Appropriate Actions by Trump—Avoids Needless Bloodshed," Heritage Foundation, October 21, 2019.

Edward Lucas, "Moscow Advances as America Retreats," Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), October 21, 2019.

Kate O'Keeffe, "Lagarde Says U.S. Is at Risk of Losing Global Leader Role," Wall Street Journal, October 21, 2019.

Robin Wright, "Turkey, Syria, the Kurds, and Trump's Abandonment of Foreign Policy," New Yorker, October 20, 2019.

David M. Crane, "Russia's Snub of Geneva Convention Protocol Sets Dangerous Precedent," The Hill, October 20, 2019.

Conrad Black, "In Syria, Trump Makes the Best of the Situation," National Review, October 18, 2019.

Matthew Continetti, "Syria: Endgame, Column: Americans Are Getting the Retreat They Voted For," Washington Free Beacon, October 18, 2019.

James Jay Carafano, "On Syria and Grave Matters We Need a Serious President to Speak—Not a Showman to Tweet," Heritage Foundation, October 18, 2019.

Jonah Goldberg, "To Trump, Alliances Are Strictly Business," National Review, October 18, 2019.

Trita Parsi and Stephen Wertheim, "America's Syria Debacle Is Not Trump's Alone," Foreign Policy, October 18, 2019.

John Pomfret, "Trump Abandoned the Kurds in Syria. Could Taiwan Be Next?" Washington Post, October 18, 2019.

Alex Ward, "Trump Loves Dictators. Erdogan Is the Latest to Take Advantage of That." Vox, October 18, 2019.

Joseph Bosco, "After Syria Debacle, US Need to Recommit to Indo-Pacific," The Hill, October 17, 2019.

James Jay Carafano, "U.S. Must Prevent Rise of New ISIS Caliphate in Syria Following Our Troop Withdrawal," Heritage Foundation, October 17, 2019.

Jim Cook, "Trump's Response to the Crisis in Northern Syria: A Case of Principled Realism in Action?" National Interest, October 17, 2019.

Karen DeYoung, Josh Dawsey, and Kareem Fahim, "In Turkey's President, Trump Seems to Have Found a Soul Mate," Washington Post, October 17, 2019.

"Donald Trump's betrayal of the Kurds is a blow to America's credibility," Economist, October 17, 2019.

David French, "More Evidence the Guardrails Are Gone," National Review, October 17, 2019.

Michael Gerson, "Trump Is Turning American Ideology into a Sham," Washington Post, October 17, 2019.

Caroline Houck, "Tracking Trump's National-Security Conflicts of Interest," Defense One, October 17, 2019.

Fred Kaplan, "Trump's Wild Wednesday," Slate, October 17, 2019.

Joshua Keating, "Trump Gives Turkey Exactly What It Wants, Claims Victory," Slate, October 17, 2019.

Jonathan Manthorpe, "Trump to Asian Allies: You May Be Abandoned Next," Asia Times, October 17, 2019.

William H. McRaven, "Our Republic Is Under Attack From the President," New York Times, October 17, 2019.

Daniel Nexon, "Trump's a Paper Tiger, and Everyone Knows It," Atlantic, October 17, 2019.

Stephanie Schwartz, "The End of Asylum; Trump's Deals with Central American Countries Could Unravel the Global Refugee System as We Know It," Slate, October 17, 2019.

Jim Talent, "Trump Used the Options He Had in Syria," National Review, October 17, 2019.

Fareed Zakaria, "Trump's Syria Actions Are the Result of a Knowledge-Free Foreign Policy," Washington Post, October 17, 2019.

Naz El-Khatib and Ashley Wood, "Trump's Devastating Silence on China's Human Rights Abuses," Diplomat, October 16, 2019.

Jonah Goldberg, "In Syria Withdrawal, Trump Wings It—as Usual," National Review, October 16, 2019.

Eli Lake, "The Trump Doctrine: American Unexceptionalism," Bloomberg, October 16, 2019.

Deb Riechmann, "Analysis: Trump Impulsiveness a Theme in Impeachment, Syria," Associated Press, October 16, 2019.

Kori Schake, "Trump Is Complicit in Erdogan Violence," Atlantic, October 16, 2019.

Liz Sly, "The Hasty U.S. Pullback from Syria Is a Searing Moment in America's Withdrawal from the Middle East," Washington Post, October 16, 2019.

James Traub, "The Fire in Syria Is Shedding Light on the United States," Foreign Policy, October 16, 2019.

Garvan Walshe, "Kobani Today, Krakow Tomorrow," Foreign Policy, October 16, 2019.

Mohammed Ayoob, "Who Gains from Trump's Sudden Syria Withdrawal? Russia." National Interest, October 15, 2019.

Dan Balz, "Trump's Decisions on Syria Bear All the Hallmarks of His 'America First' Foreign Policy," Washington Post, October 15, 2019.

James Jay Carafano, "In Syria, Global Spotlight Should Be on Turkey, Not Trump," Heritage Foundation, October 15, 2019.

Ted Galen Carpenter, "Trump's Syria Conundrum Is a Sign That America Has Too Many Alliances," National Interest, October 15, 2019.

Dominic Evans, Orhan Coskun, and Tom Perry, "Power Shift: Who Gains in the Battle for Syria's Northeast?" Reuters, October 15, 2019.

Conor Friedersdorf, "Trump's Middle East Policy Is a Fraud," Atlantic, October 15, 2019.

Anne Gearan, "Trump's Moves In Ukraine and Syria Have a Common Denominator: Both Help Russia," Washington Post, October 15, 2019.

Leon Hadar, "The Crisis in Syria Is What a Post-U.S. Middle East Looks Like," National Interest, October 15, 2019.

Paul Haenle and Sam Bresnick, "Trump Is Beijing's Best Asset," Foreign Policy, October 15, 2019.

Rich Lowry, "Trump's Syria Pullback Is an Obama-Like Blunder," National Review, October 15, 2019.

Clifford D. May, "President Trump Not Ending the Endless War in Syria," Washington Times, October 15, 2019.

Peter Navarro, "Peter Navarro: The Trump Guide to Diplomacy," New York Times, October 15, 2019.

Jay Nordlinger, "'Decline Is a Choice,'" National Review, October 15, 2019.

Henry Olsen, "Why Trump Won't Lose Many Voters Over Syria," Washington Post, October 15, 2019.

Christopher A. Preble and Doug Bandow, "America's Ill-Fated Syria Intervention: The Lessons Washington Must Learn," National Interest, October 15, 2019.

Michelle Goldberg, "Ukraine Has Become a Vibrant Democracy. No Wonder Trump Hates It." New York Times, October 14, 2019.

Fred Kaplan, "Trump's Worst Betrayal Yet," Slate, October 14, 2019.

Tom Rogan, "Trump Self-Destructs His Middle East Policy," Washington Examiner, October 14, 2019.

The Editorial Board, "Trump Is Making Syria, and the Middle East, More Dangerous," New York Times, October 14, 2019.

The Editorial Board, "Trump's Syria Mess," Wall Street Journal, October 14, 2019.

Walter Russell Mead, "Mike Pompeo's Predicament," Wall Street Journal, October 14, 2019.

Ketti Davison, "Forecast: The Consequences of the U.S. Withdrawal from Syria," Institute for the Study of War, October 13, 2019.

Jackson Diehl," In a Month, Trump Has Destroyed 'America First,'" Washington Post, October 13, 2019.

Michelle Goldberg, "'The Beacon Has Gone Out': What Trump and Giuliani Have Wrought," New York Times, October 12, 2019.

Tanner Greer, "Can American Values Survive in a Chinese World?" Foreign Policy, October 12, 2019.

David D. Kirkpatrick, Benn Hubbard, and David M. Halbfinger, "Trump's Abrupt Shifts in Middle East Unnerve U.S. Allies," New York Times, October 12, 2019, updated October 14, 2019.

Michael Lind, "The Return of Geoeconomics," National Interest, October 13, 2019.

Washington Examiner, "Cultivating Alliances Puts America First," Washington Examiner, October 12, 2019.

Anne Applebaum, "U.S. Foreign Policy Is for Sale. Who Else Is Buying?" Washington Post, October 11, 2019.

Joseph Bosco, "In Syria, Making America Ashamed Again—and Weaker," The Hill, October 11, 2019.

Robbie Gramer and Amy Mackinnon, "Pompeo's State Department Reels as Impeachment Inquiry Sinks Morale," Foreign Policy, October 11, 2019.

Jasmin Mujanović, "The West Owns Syria's Disaster," Foreign Policy, October 11, 2019.

Grant Newsham, "US Can Be Careless with Loyal Allies," Taipei Times, October 11, 2019.

James Phillips, "No, We're Not Selling Out the Syrian Kurds. But We Should Mediate Their Conflict With Turkey." Heritage Foundation, October 11, 2019.

Tom Rogan, "Trump's Absurd Hypocrisy: Abandon the Kurds, Send Troops to Saudi Arabia," Washington Examiner, October 11, 2019.

Lara Seligman, "Pentagon Chief: 'We Are Not Abandoning the Kurds,'" Foreign Policy, October 11, 2019.

Bret Stephens, "Goodbye, America. Goodbye, Freedom Man." New York Times, October 11, 2019.

The Editorial Board, "The Turk and the President," Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2019.

Jonathan S. Tobin, "The Problem with Trump's 'Normandy Doctrine,'" National Review, October 11, 2019.

Peter Baker and Lara Jakes, "In Syria, Trump Distills a Foreign Policy of Impulse, and Faces the Fallout," New York Times, October 10, 2019.

Michael Brendan Dougherty, "The America-First Chimera," National Review, October 10, 2019.

Olivia Enos, "The First of (Hopefully) Many Steps to Respond to Human Rights Violations in Xinjiang," Heritage Foundation, October 10, 2019.

Kay Coles James, "Protecting Religious Liberty," Heritage Foundation, October 10, 2019.

Katie Bo Williams, "Why US Officials Say Trump is Flexing on Foreign Policy," Defense One, October 10, 2019.

Matt Beebe, "'Top Military Officers' Misfire In Atlantic Hit On Trump Foreign Policy," Federalist, October 9, 2019.

Conrad Black, "Trump's Wise Turkey Policy," National Review, October 9, 2019.

Eric S. Edelman and Aykan Erdemir, "Trump's Capitulation to Erdogan Destroys U.S. Credibility," Foreign Policy, October 9, 2019.

John Allen Gay, "The Syria Crisis Highlights Precisely What's Wrong With U.S. Foreign Policy," Federalist, October 9, 2019.

Peter Harris, "Trump's Foreign Policy 'Restraint' In Syria Could Be a Train Wreck," National Interest, October 9, 2019.

Sylvia Taschka, "Trump's America Shines Bright for Europe's Radical New Right," National Interest, October 9, 2019.

Robert B. Zoellick, "The Foreign Policy Americans Really Want," Washington Post, October 9, 2019.

Ted Galen Carpenter, "Yes, Donald Trump Dumped the Kurds (And We Should Not Be Shocked)," National Interest, October 8, 2019.

Jim Geraghty, "We're Not Exporting Our Values to China—We're Importing Theirs," National Review, October 8, 2019.

William Saletan, "Guess Who Else Trump Is Colluding With," Slate, October 8, 2019.

Kori Schake, "The Trump Administration Doesn't Care About Allies," Atlantic, October 8, 2019.

The Editors, "Trump's Syria Mistake," National Review, October 8, 2019.

Jim Gerachty, "Our Foreign Policy Is Muddled, Because Our Public Is Muddled, Because Our Leaders Are Muddled," National Review, October 7, 2019.

Tom Rogan, "Foolish Beyond Belief: In Syria, Trump Just Betrayed Our Allies and Helped Our Enemies," Washington Examiner, October 7, 2019.

Tom Rogan, "Trump Has Blown Up His Red Lines. Why Would Turkey Fear His Economic Threat?" Washington Examiner, October 7, 2019.

Stephen M. Walt, "Welcome to Trump's Impeachment Foreign Policy," Foreign Policy, October 7, 2019.

Peter E. Harrell, "Trump's Use of Sanctions Is Nothing Like Obama's," Foreign Policy, October 5, 2019.

Christopher Woody, "China Is Filling a 'Strategic Vacuum' in the Pacific Left by the US and Its Allies, and That's Bad News for Taiwan," Business Insider, October 5, 2019.

Azeem Ibrahim, "China Has No Room for Dissenting Friends, Small Nations Know They Can Break from Washington—But Not from Beijing," Foreign Policy, October 4, 2019.

Carol D. Leonnig, Shane Harris, and Josh Dawsey, "Trump's Calls with Foreign Leaders Have Long Worried Aides, Leaving Some 'Genuinely Horrified,'" Washington Post, October 4, 2019.

Tom Rogan, "Ironically, Trump's Silence on Hong Kong May Be Helping Hongkongers," Washington Examiner, October 4, 2019.

Colum Lynch, "Trump's Whistleblower Attack 'Undermines' U.S. Global Accountability Push," Foreign Policy, October 3, 2019.

Christopher A. Preble, John Glaser, and A. Trevor Thrall, "What Ukraine Tells Us about Trump," Cato Institute, October 3, 2019.

Robert A. Manning, "Trump's Globalism Is a Caricature of Multilateralism," Foreign Policy, October 2, 2019.

Christopher A. Preble, John Glaser, and A. Trevor Thrall, "Fuel to the Fire, How Trump Made America's Broken Foreign Policy Even Worse (and How We Can Recover)," Cato Institute, October 2, 2019. (Another version of this article was posted by the Cato Institute on September 21, 2019.)

Nicole Narea, "America Is Stepping Down as a Global Leader on Refugees," Vox, October 1, 2019.

Elliot Silverberg and Matthew Sullivan, "Assessing Trump's Indo-Pacific Strategy, 2 Years In," Diplomat, October 1, 2019.

John Glaser, Christopher A. Preble, and A. Trevor Thrall, "Towards a More Prudent American Grand Strategy," Survival, October-November 2019.

James Fallows, "The End of the Roman Empire Wasn't That Bad, Maybe the End of the American One Won't Be Either," Atlantic, October 2019.

Michael Gerson, "An American President Who Doesn't Understand the Meaning of America," Washington Post, September 30, 2019.

Asli Aydintasbas, "The Liberal World Order Crumbled a Year Ago. We're Still Reeling." Washington Post, September 29, 2019.

Laura Rosenberger, "China and Russia Are Working to Destroy Democracy, and Our Victory Is Not Assured," Dallas Morning News, September 29, 2019.

Shane Harris and John Hudson, "Jamal Khashoggi's Death Made the Saudi Crown Prince a Pariah. Trump Has Helped Rehabilitate Him on the World Stage," Washington Post, September 28, 2019.

Alexis Papazoglou, "Trump Has a Peculiar Definition of Sovereignty," Atlantic, September 28, 2019.

Anne Applebaum, "Americans Spent Decades Discussing the Rule of Law. Why Would Anyone Believe Us Now?" Washington Post, September 27, 2019.

Philip Gordon and Daniel Fried, "The Other Ukraine Scandal: Trump's Threats to Our Ambassador Who Wouldn't Bend," Washington Post, September 27, 2019.

Brett D. Schaefer, "A U.S. Victory at the Universal Postal Union," Heritage Foundation, September 27, 2019.

Hal Brands, "Reckless Choices, Bad Deals, and Dangerous Provocations," Foreign Affairs, September 26, 2019.

Michael Hirsh, "Trump's Call With Zelensky Was Not Out of the Ordinary—for Trump," Foreign Policy, September 26, 2019.

Keith Johnson, "Trump Scores a Big Victory—on Stamps," Foreign Policy, September 26, 2019.

Nick Cumming-Bruce, "U.S. Threat to Withdraw From Postal Treaty Prompts Emergency Talks," New York Times, September 25, 2019.

Amy MacKinnon and Robbie Gramer, "Trump Blasts Own Ambassador in Call With Ukrainian President," Foreign Policy, September 25, 2019.

Paul Musgrave, "The U.S. Tried to Fix Ukraine's Government. We Exported Our Corruption Instead." Washington Post, September 25, 2019.

David Nakamura, "On the World Stage at the United Nations, Trump's 'America First' Foreign Policy Gives Way to a 'Me First' Mantra," Washington Post, September 25, 2019.

Elbridge Colby, "Don't Let Iran Distract From China," Wall Street Journal, September 24, 2019.

Matthew Continetti, "Trump, the U.N. & 'Encroaching Control,'" National Review, September 24, 2019.

Michael Crowley, "Trump Celebrates Nationalism in U.N. Speech and Plays Down Iran Crisis," New York Times, September 24, 2019.

Sarah Dilorenzo (Associated Press), "US Steps Up Pressure on China over Treatment of Muslims," Washington Post, September 24, 2019.

Editorial Board, "Trump Tells UN the Truth About Globalism and Nationalism," New York Post, September 24, 2019.

Anne Gearan and Seung Min Kim, "Trump Condemns Globalism, Touts Nationalistic View of Foreign Affairs at U.N.," Washington Post, September 24, 2019.

Fred Kaplan, "Trump Is No Longer Even Pretending to Care About the Ideals of the U.N.," Slate, September 24, 2019.

Jen Kirby, "Trump Goes to the United Nations to Argue Against Everything It Stands For—Again," Vox, September 24, 2019.

Anita Kumar, "Decoding Trump's Speech Before the United Nations," Politico, September 24, 2019.

Edith M. Lederer, "UN Chief Warns of a World Divided Between US and China," Associated Press, September 24, 2019.

Jonathan Lemire and Deb Riechmann, "Trump Attacks Globalism, While Putting Pressure on Iran," Associated Press, September 24, 2019.

Michael McCaul, "The United States Can't Cede the U.N. to China," Foreign Policy, September 24, 2019.

Caitlin Oprysko and Anita Kumar, "Trump Pushes Aggressive 'America First' Message to World Leaders," Politico, September 24, 2019.

Humeyra Pamuk and David Brunnstrom, "U.S. Leads Condemnation of China for 'Horrific' Repression of Muslims," Reuters, September 24, 2019.

Jennifer Peltz (Associated Press), "NATO Leader: Tricky Times Show Need for International Groups," Military Times, September 24, 2019.

Fan Peng, "Why China's Politics Scores Above the West's," Global Times, September 24, 2019.

Matthew Petti, "Trump Airs Nationalism and Globalism Gripes at the UN," National Interest, September 24, 2019.

Ayesha Rascoe, "Trump To U.N. General Assembly: 'The Future Does Not Belong To Globalists,'" NPR, September 24, 2019.

Tom Rogan, "Trumps Stands Up for Positive Nationalism, But Forgets His UN Audience," Washington Examiner, September 24, 2019.

Vivian Salama, "At U.N., Trump Urges Nations to Place Their Citizens First, Rejects 'Globalists,'" Wall Street Journal, September 24, 2019.

Alex Ward, "Trump at UN Offers His Most Forceful Support for Hong Kong Yet," Vox, September 24, 2019.

Katie Bo Williams, "Trump Delivers Populist Message to the UN—and US Voters," Defense One, September 24, 2019.

Joseph Bosco, "Remembering Otto Warmbier's Death, Trump Renews Pressure on North Korea," The Hill, September 23, 2019.

Peter Harris, "A Recession Won't Stop America's Reckless Military Spending," National Interest, September 23, 2019.

Emilie Kao and Joel Griffith, "Trump's Focus on Religious Freedom at the U.N. Should Lead the Way," Heritage Foundation, September 23, 2019.

Anita Kumar, "Trump Tries to make America Relevant Again to the U.N.," Politico, September 23, 2019.

Mairead McArdle, "Trump Criticizes World Leaders on Religious Freedom, Earmarks $25 Million," National Review, September 23, 2019.

Michelle Nichols and David Brunnstrom, "At U.N., Trump Pushes Religious Freedom at Event Slamming China over Uighurs," Reuters, September 23, 2019.

Franco Ordonez, "Trump Returns To The U.N. This Week Facing Growing Unease About U.S. Leadership," NPR, September 23, 2019.

Alex Pascal, "Against Washington's 'Great Power' Obsession," Atlantic, September 23, 2019.

Kelsey Zorzi, "Trump Stands Up for Religious Freedom," Wall Street Journal, September 23, 2019.

Colum Lynch and Robbie Gramer, "The World Comes to the U.N.—but the U.S. Is largely Missing," Foreign Policy, September 22, 2019.

Ali Wyne, "How Not to Confront China," National Interest, September 22, 2019.

Ted Galen Carpenter, "Interventionists Evade Responsibility for Their Policy Disasters," Cato Institute, November 20, 2019.

Hal Brands, "A Filipino Battleground of the China-U.S. Cool War," Bloomberg, September 19, 2019.

Edward Luce, "Trump Is Serious About US Divorce from China," Financial Times, September 19, 2019.

Josh Rogin, "The Trump Administration Prepares a New Assault on U.S. Soft Power," Washington Post, September 19, 2019.

Katie Bo Williams, "How Trump is Remaking Republican Foreign Policy," Defense One, September 19, 2019.

Thomas J. Duesterberg, "Trump's Trade Policy at a Crossroads," National Review, September 17, 2019.

Jim Townsend, "Trump's Defense Cuts in Europe Will Backfire," Foreign Policy, September 17, 2019.

Grant T. Harris and Michael McFaul, "How Vladimir Putin Is Outplaying the U.S. in Africa," Washington Post, September 17, 2019.

Kristine Lee, "Coming Soon to the United Nations: Chinese Leadership and Authoritarian Values," Foreign Affairs, September 16, 2019.

David Nakamura, "'I Don't Blame Kim Jong Un': In Dismissing Bolton, Trump Sides with North Korean Leader—Again," Washington Post, September 12, 2019.

Rick Noack, "Why U.S. Foes Around the World Will Welcome Bolton's Departure, and Why They Shouldn't Get Too Excited," Washington Post, September 11, 2019.

Thomas Wright, "Bolton's Departure Signals Trump's Foreign-Policy Pivot," Atlantic, September 11, 2019.

Charles Edel, "Democracy Is Fighting for Its Life," Foreign Policy, September 10, 2019.

Dexter Filkins, "How John Bolton Got the Better of President Trump," New Yorker, September 10, 2019.

Beverly Gage, "The Koch Foundation Is Trying to Reshape Foreign Policy. With Liberal Allies." New York Times, September 10, 2019.

Dov S. Zakheim, "Donald Trump and the Art of the Perpetual Bluff," National Interest, September 10, 2019.

Janusz Bugajski, "The US Can Play China Against Russia," The Hill, September 9, 2019.

Richard Fontaine, "Great-Power Competition Is Washington's Top Priority—but Not the Public's," Foreign Affairs, September 9, 2019.

Greg Myre, "Are The U.S. And China headed For A Cold War?" NPR, September 9, 2019.

Nick Wadhams, Glen Carey, and Jennifer Jacobs, "Failed Afghan Talks Underscore Trump's Foreign Policy Setbacks," Bloomberg, September 9, 2019.

Katie Bo Williams, "Once Again, Trump Lurches to End a War, But Troops Remain," Defense One, September 9, 2019.

Colin Dueck, "The End of the Wilsonian Century?" National Interest, September 8, 2019.

Seth G. Jones and Tom Karako, "Where Did 'Maximum Pressure' Go?" Wall Street Journal, September 8, 2019.

James Jay Carafano, "Trump Should Use U.N. Meeting to Champion Religious Liberty," Heritage Foundation, September 6, 2019.

Larry Diamond, "America's Silence Helps Autocrats Triumph," Foreign Policy, September 6, 2019.

Seth Kaplan, "When Everything Is a Human Right, Nothing Is," Foreign Policy, September 6, 2019.

Hunter Marston, "The U.S.-China Cold War Is a Myth," Foreign Policy, September 6, 2019.

Nahal Toosi, "Trump Plan Would Steer Foreign Aid to 'Friends and Allies,'" Politico, September 6, 2019.

Colum Lynch and Robbie Gramer, "Senior Officials Concede Loss of U.S. Clout as Trump Prepares for U.N. Summit," Foreign Policy, September 5, 2019.

Nicholas Phillips, "The Trade War Is Smart Geopolitics," National Review, September 5, 2019.

Dalibor Rohac and Scott Cullinane, "American–European Unity against China Is Indispensable," National Review, September 5, 2019.

Ted Galen Carpenter, "The Trump Administration Misses the Point Again about Burden‐Sharing," Cato Institute, September 3, 2019.

Walter Russell Mead, "The Rules of Geopolitics Are Different in Asia," Wall Street Journal, September 2, 2019.

Fred Kaplan, "At the G-7, Trump Showed Again That He's a Terrible Negotiator," Slate, August 27, 2019.

William Saletan, "Trump Did Not Represent the U.S. at the G-7," Slate, August 27, 2019.

Editorial Board, "A G-7 Fiasco to Remember, Without U.S. Leadership, the World Is a More Dangerous Place," Bloomberg, August 26, 2019.

Uri Friedman and Peter Nicholas, "A Defining Moment for Trump's Foreign Policy," Atlantic, August 23, 2019.

Peter Nicholas, "America's Allies Seem to Be Moving On Without Trump," Atlantic, August 26, 2019.

Tal Axelrod, "Here Are the US Allies That Have Been Caught in Trump's Crosshairs," The Hill, August 24, 2019.

Nate Anderson and Jon Soltz, "One Step at a Time: Congress' Charge to Reshape American Foreign Policy," Military Times, August 23, 2019.

Fred Kaplan, "This Is What a World Without American Leadership Looks Like," Slate, August 23, 2019.

Jakub Grygiel, "The Role of Values in Foreign Policy," National Review, August 21, 2019.

Michael Hirsh, "Why Trump Fails at Making Deals," Foreign Policy, August 21, 2019.

Fred Kaplan, "The Greenland Gambit, Trump's Latest Obsession Shows What's Wrong with Treating Every Foreign Policy Issue Like a Real Estate Deal," Slate, August 21, 2019.

Howard Lavine and James Ron, "To Protect Human Rights Aboard, Preach to Trump Voters," Foreign Policy, August 21, 2019.

Abigail Tracy, "'He Had Made Us a Laughing Stock': Diplomats Stunned by Trump's Feud With Denmark," Vanity Fair, August 21, 2019.

Thomas Wright, "Trump Has Defected," Atlantic, August 21, 2019.

James Kitfield, "America Adrift: 'Bringing The World To Crisis,'" Breaking Defense, August 20, 2019.

Richard Haass, "Trump Doesn't Negotiate. He Makes Demands." Washington Post, August 19, 2019.

Edward Wong, "Waning of American Power? Trump Struggles With an Asia in Crisis," New York Times, August 13, 2019.

Robbie Gramer, "Hiring Freeze Put U.S. Diplomats Under Threat Worldwide, Report Says," Foreign Policy, August 9, 2019.

Michael Hirsh, "America Ignored," Foreign Policy, August 9, 2019.

Gideon Rachman, "What Happens When the World Cannot Rely on the US?" Financial Times, August 9, 2019.

Conrad Black, "Trump Faces Down the China Threat," National Review, August 8, 2019.

Eliana Johnson, "Trump's Vision Meets Growing Global Chaos," Politico, August 8, 2019.

James Jay Carafano, "Ensuring a Twenty-Second Century America," Heritage Foundation, August 6, 2019.

Gideon Rachman, "The Asian Strategic Order is Dying," Financial Times, August 5, 2019.

Anna Applebaum, "Non-Americans, Be Warned: There Will Be No Return to Normal After Trump," Washington Post, August 4, 2019.

Christopher A. Preble, "Is This the End of the Liberal World Order?" National Interest, August 3, 2019.

David French, "The Dangerous Folly of Donald Trump's Infatuation with Kim Jong-un," National Review, August 2, 2019.

Jay Nordlinger, "Hong Kong and Us," National Review, August 2, 2019.

Derek Grossman, "The Biggest Threat to the US Indo-Pacific Strategy? Washington Itself." Diplomat, August 1, 2019.

Paul R. Pillar, "Diplomatic Meltdown: Why America Has an Ineffective Department of State," National Interest, July 29, 2019.

Kori Schake, "The Bill for America First Is Coming Due," Atlantic, July 27, 2019.

Daniel Sneider, "Northeast Asia Unraveling Amid US Retreat," Asia Times, July 25, 2019.

Walter Russell Mead, "Trump's Hesitant Embrace of Human Rights," Wall Street Journal, July 22, 2019.

Paul R. Pillar, "Mike Pompeo's Human Rights Problem," National Interest, July 22, 2019.

Stephen M. Walt, "Restraint Isn't Isolationism—and It Won't Endanger America," Foreign Policy, July 22, 2019.

Matthew Lee, "Pompeo Takes Aim at China at Religious Freedom Conference," Associated Press, July 18, 2019.

Editorial Board, "Pompeo Gets Religion," Wall Street Journal, July 17, 2019.

Michael Hirsh, "America's Road to Reputational Ruin," Foreign Policy, July 17, 2019.

Ted Galen Carpenter, "America Should Rethink Its Commitments to Allies," National Interest, July 14, 2019.

Edward Wong, "Trump's Asia Gamble: Shatter Enduring Strategies on China and North Korea," New York Times, July 11, 2019.

Anthony Leonardi, "Pompeo Launches Commission to Review Unalienable Rights in US Foreign Policy," Washington Examiner, July 8, 2019.

Eric Tucker, "Trump Administration Reviews Human Rights' Role in US Policy," Associated Press, July 8, 2019.

Michael Pompeo, "Unalienable Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy, The Founders' Principles Can Help Revitalize Liberal Democracy Worldwide," Wall Street Journal, July 7, 2019.

Thomas Wright, "Trump Couldn't Ignore the Contradictions of His Foreign Policy Any Longer," Atlantic, July 5, 2019.

Nahal Toosi, "Trump's 'Natural Law' Human Rights Panel Readies for Launch," Politico, July 3, 2019.

Fareed Zakaria, "The Self-Destruction of American Power," Foreign Affairs, July/August 2019.

Editorial Board, "The Trump Doctrine, With This President, the Diplomacy Is Always Personal," Wall Street Journal, June 30, 2019.

Jay Nordlinger, "Dictators and Americans," National Review, June 30, 2019.

Nick Wadhams, "Trump Helps Bring Shunned Authoritarians Back In From the Cold," Bloomberg, June 30, 2019.

Peter Baker, "Trump Once Again Assails America's Friends as He Opens Overseas Visit," New York Times, June 27, 2019.

Anne Pierce, "'America First' Should Not Translate to 'Democracy Last,'" National Interest, June 26, 2019.

Ted Galen Carpenter, "Wrong: Trump is Not An Isolationist," National Interest, June 23, 2019.

Curt Mills, "The Battle for the Soul of Trump Foreign Policy," National Interest, June 22, 2019.

Anrew Restuccia, "Trump's 'No Rush' Foreign Policy, The President Is Affording Himself Ample Room for Protracted Negotiations—and Protecting Himself in Case His Strategy Goes Awry," Politico, June 22, 2019.

Greg Jaffe, "A Dangerous Confusion at the Heart of Trump's Foreign Policy, Washington Post, June 21, 2019.

Kori Schake, "Worse Than Obama's Red-Line Moment," Atlantic, June 21, 2019.

Hal Brands, "New U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy Isn't Going to Scare China," Bloomberg, June 18, 2019.

Peter Harris, "Where is Trump the Realist? For Better or Worse, Donald Trump Listens to His Advisors on Foreign Policy." National Interest, June 17, 2019.

Fred Hiatt, "Trump Inherited America's Foreign Policy Riches. He's Frittering Them Away." Washington Post, June 16, 2019.

Christopher Preble, "The Peace Problem: Is America Saving the World or Destroying It?" National Interest, June 16, 2019.

Zack Beauchamp, "Trump, Election Interference, and Hollow Nationalism," Vox, June 13, 2019.

Francois Delattre, "The World Grows More Dangerous by the Day," New York Times, June 13, 2019.

Bret Stephens, "Hong Kong and the Future of Freedom," New York Times, June 13, 2019.

Stephen M. Walt, "Nobody's Asking for Trump to Be a Genius," Foreign Policy, June 10, 2019.

Anne Gearan, Toluse Olorunnipa, and James McAuley, "'Don't Poke the Bear': European Leaders Refine Their Approach to Trump," Washington Post, June 7, 2019.

Matthew Continetti, "Trump's Great D-Day Speech," National Review, June 6, 2019.

Adam Gopnik, "Europe and America Seventy-Five Years After D Day," New Yorker, June 6, 2019.

Peter Feaver, "The Lessons of 1944 Are in Jeopardy," Foreign Policy, June 5, 2019.

Michael Hirsh, "D-Day's Dying Legacy," Foreign Policy, June 5, 2019.

Brett McGurk, "American Foreign Policy Adrift," Foreign Affairs, June 5, 2019.

Jennifer Rubin, "A Low Point for America Overseas," Washington Post, June 5, 2019.

Yasmeen Serhan and Peter Nicholas, "Using D-Day to Remind Trump Who His Real Allies Are," Atlantic, June 5, 2019.

Walter Russell Mead, "Trump's Case Against Europe," Wall Street Journal, June 3, 2019.

David Nakamura, "Trump's Reliance on Pressure Tactics Is Showing Diminishing Returns," Washington Post, June 1, 2019.

Fred Kaplan, "Who Speaks for the United States?" Slate, May 29, 2019.

Doug Bandow, "Questionable Alliances: Why America Needs to Reexamine Its International Relationships," National Interest, May 28, 2019.

David Ignatius, "How to Make Sense of the Clown Show That Is Trump's Foreign Policy," Washington Post, May 28, 2019.

Mona Charen, "What's Missing from Trump's China Policy," National Review, May 24, 2019.

Joshua Keating, "Why Would Any Country Trust America Again?" Slate, May 24, 2019.

Fareed Zakaria, "Trump's Approach to Foreign Policy Provokes an Anti-American Response," Washington Post, May 16, 2019.

Max Boot, "Trump's Pet Intellectuals Are Embarrassing Themselves," Washington Post, May 15, 2019.

Eliana Plott, "Ignoring Trump's Orders, Hoping He'll Forget," Atlantic, May 15, 2019.

Rebeccah Heinrichs, "Mike Pompeo's Meeting With Putin Highlights Trump's Reversal Of Obama's Russia Failures," Federalist, May 14, 2019.

David Ignatius, "Foreign Adversaries Have Figured Trump Out," Washington Post, May 14, 2019.

Zack Beauchamp, "Hungary's Leader Is Waging War on Democracy. Today, He's at the White House." Vox, May 13, 2019.

Akshobh Giridharadas, "Trump: Trade, Tirade and Transatlantic Relations," National Interest, May 11, 2019.

Paul Krugman, "Killing the Pax Americana," New York Times, May 11, 2019.

Anne Applebaum, "Trump Has the Attention Span of a Gnat. It's Destroying Our Foreign Policy." Washington Post, May 10, 2019.

Henry Olsen, "Trump's Critics Were Wrong. He's Not a Madman in Foreign Policy." Washington Post, May 10, 2019.

David Frum, "Trump Has Just One Trick—And It's Not Working Anymore," Atlantic, May 9, 2019.

Joshua Keating, "The People Want 'America First,' in Theory," Slate, May 9, 2019.

Robert D. Blackwill, "Trump Deserves More Credit for His Foreign Policies," Foreign Policy, May 7, 2019.

Joseph S. Nye, "American Soft Power in the Age of Trump," Project Syndicate, May 6, 2019.

Ralph A. Cossa and Brad Glosserman, "Defining and Refining the Indo-Pacific Concept," Comparative Connections, May-August 2019.

Karen DeYoung and Josh Dawsey, "For Inured Foreign Officials, the Sting of Trump's Tweets Has Begun to Dull," Washington Post, April 30, 2019.

Max Boot, "Trump Again Shows How Easily He's Manipulated by Dictators," Washington Post, April 30, 2019.

Amy Mackinnon, "Trump May Like Putin. His Administration Doesn't." Foreign Policy, April 29, 2019.

Steven A. Cook, "Loving Dictators Is as American as Apple Pie," Foreign Policy, April 26, 2019.

Sumantra Maitra, "The Case For Continuing Foreign Policy Retrenchment After Trump," Federalist, April 26, 2019.

Stephen M. Walt, "America Isn't as Powerful as It Thinks It Is," Foreign Policy, April 26, 2019.

Henry Farrell, Abraham Newman, "By Punishing Iran, Trump Is Weakening America," Foreign Policy, April 24, 2019.

Christopher A. Preble, "Adapting to American Decline," New York Times, April 21, 2019.

Michael Anton, "The Trump Doctrine, An Insider Explains the President's Foreign Policy," Foreign Policy, April 20, 2019.

Alex Horton, "Trump Soured Relations in Latin America. China and Russia Have Welcomed the Chaos." Washington Post, April 20, 2019.

Ted Galen Carpenter, "Trump Should Have Already Left NATO," National Interest, April 17, 2019.

Jermi Suri, "The Long Rise and Sudden Fall of American Diplomacy," Foreign Policy, April 17, 2019.

Stephen M. Walt," The United States Will Be Shocked by Its Future," Foreign Policy, April 16, 2019.

James Jay Carafano, "America's Next 5 Moves in the Indo-Pacific Region, Donald Trump Has Done Much to Alter U.S. Influence in Asia," National Interest, April 7, 2019.

Yoram Hazony and Ofir Haivry, "Why America Needs New Alliances," Wall Street Journal, April 5, 2019.

Ted Galen Carpenter, "It's Time to Rethink America's Foreign Alliance Commitments," National Interest, April 4, 2019.

Henry Olsen, "It's Time to Rethink the NATO Alliance," Washington Post, April 4, 2019.

James Stavridis, "Why NATO Is Essential For World Peace, According to Its Former Commander," Time, April 4, 2019.

Doug Bandow, "The Outdated Alliance?" Foreign Policy, April 3, 2019.

Kathy Gilsinan and Peter Nicholas, "Trump Learns to Live With NATO—And Vice Versa," Atlantic, April 3, 2019.

Nicholas Burns and Douglas Lute, "NATO's Biggest Problem is President Trump," Washington Post, April 2, 2019.

Alex Ward, "Trump Has a Strong Foreign Policy Narrative for 2020," Vox, April 1, 2019.

Robert D. Blackwill, "Trump's Foreign Policies Are Better Than They Seem," Council on Foreign Relations, April 2019.

Jason Horowitz, "Italy's Deal With China Signals a Shift as U.S. Influence Recedes," New York Times, March 30, 2019.

Michael Auslin, "Crunch Time for U.S.–China Relations?" National Review, March 29, 2019.

Walter Russell Mead, "NATO Is Dying, but Don't Blame Trump," Wall Street Journal, March 25, 2019.

Author Contact Information

Ronald O'Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs ([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
Michael Moodie, Assistant Director and Senior Specialist in Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade ([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])

Footnotes

1.

Other terms used to refer to the liberal international order include U.S.-led international order, postwar international order, rules-based international order, and open international order. Observers sometimes substitute world for international, or omit international or world and refer simply to the liberal order, the U.S.-led order, and so on. In the terms liberal international order and liberal order, the word liberal does not refer to the conservative-liberal construct often used in discussing contemporary politics in the United States or other countries. It is, instead, an older use of the term that refers to an order based on the rule of law, as opposed to an order based on the arbitrary powers of hereditary monarchs.

2.

For additional discussion, see CRS In Focus IF10485, Defense Primer: Geography, Strategy, and U.S. Force Design, by Ronald O'Rourke.

3.

Although the goal of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons was not articulated in explicit terms (at least not widely) by U.S. strategists until World War II and the years immediately thereafter, U.S. participation in World War I against Germany can in retrospect be viewed as an earlier U.S. action reflecting this goal.

4.

U.S. participation in the Vietnam War was justified in part by the so-called domino theory, which argued that a victory by communist-ruled North Vietnam over South Vietnam could be followed by other countries in the region falling, like dominos in a row, under communist control. Opponents of the domino theory challenged its validity and argue that it was disproven when North Vietnam's defeat of South Vietnam was not followed by other countries in the region falling under communist control. The theory's supporters argue that the theory was not disproven, because the years-long U.S. effort to defend South Vietnam, though ultimately unsuccessful in preventing victory by North Vietnam, gave other countries in the region time and space to develop their political institutions and economies enough to deter or resist communist movements in their own countries. Valid or not, the domino theory's use as a justification links U.S. participation in the war to the goal of preventing the emergence of a regional hegemon (in this case, a communist hegemon of China and/or the Soviet Union).

5.

For more on this shift, see CRS Report R43838, Renewed Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.

6.

CRS Report R43838, Renewed Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress, by Ronald O'Rourke.

7.

The terms offshore balancing and offshore control refer in general to a policy in which the United States, in effect, stands off the shore of Eurasia and engages in the security affairs of Eurasia less frequently, less directly, or less expansively. The term retrenchment is more often used by critics of these proposed approaches.

8.

Debate about this dimension of the U.S. role in the world is not limited to one between those who favor continued extensive engagement along the lines of the past 70 years and those who prefer some form of a more restrained role—other options are also being promoted. For example, one analyst and former White House aide advocates an approach that differs from both retrenchment and reassertion, an approach he labels "re-calibration" to the "geopolitical, economic, technological and other dynamics driving the 21st-century world." Such an approach, he argues, would entail a reappraisal of U.S. interests, a reassessment of U.S. power, and a repositioning of U.S. leadership. (See Bruce Jentleson, "Apart, Atop, Amidst: America in the World," War on the Rocks, January 2017.)

As another example, a different analyst argues in favor of a U.S. role based on "a better nationalism"—what he describes as a more benign and constructive form that "would not dismantle the post-war order and America's post war project, but would take a harder-edged and more disciplined approach to asserting U.S. interests." (Hal Brands, "U.S. Grand Strategy in an Age of Nationalism: Fortress American and it Alternatives," Washington Quarterly, Spring 2017: 73-93.)