Trump's Foreign Policy: 19th-Century Expansionism Reshapes Global Order

The Trump administration's foreign policy, often characterized by the slogan "Make America Great Again," is not merely a call for a return to a recent past but a deliberate echo of 19th-century American expansionism and power politics. This conversation reveals the hidden consequences of such a policy, suggesting a potential dismantling of the post-World War II rules-based international order in favor of a more unilateral, power-driven approach. Those who understand this historical undercurrent and its implications for global stability and economic engagement will gain a significant advantage in navigating the complex geopolitical landscape.

The Echoes of Empire: How 19th-Century Power Dynamics Reshape Today's World

The recurring phrase "Make America Great Again" has long been a political touchstone, but its temporal reference has remained elusive. This podcast episode, however, posits that the true historical parallel lies not in the 1950s or 1980s, but much further back, in the late 19th century. This era, marked by aggressive expansion, protectionist tariffs, and the consolidation of corporate power, appears to be the foundational blueprint for current foreign policy decisions, with profound implications for the global order.

The immediate policy decisions, such as imposing import taxes on goods from all trading partners, directly mirror the McKinley Tariff of 1890. This protectionist measure, which significantly raised rates, was enacted during a period when industries like railroads amassed immense wealth and influence, often through close ties with political figures. The podcast draws a striking parallel between the monopolistic power of 19th-century railroads and the burgeoning influence of today's AI industry. Leaders in this billion-dollar sector are now making substantial donations and actively courting favor with the current administration, mirroring the historical pattern of powerful industries shaping policy.

"The United States should have Greenland as part of the United States."

-- Stephen Miller

This echoes the territorial acquisitions of the late 19th century, a period when the U.S. expanded its domain, often with little regard for existing populations. The acquisition of Hawaii, for instance, occurred during the Spanish-American War, driven by strategic military interests. Today, the U.S. intervention in Venezuela, leading to the ousting of its leader, and the renewed push for Greenland to become a U.S. territory, signal a distinct shift. This isn't about fostering democracy or adhering to international norms; it's about a pragmatic, power-based assertion of interests, reminiscent of an earlier era.

The implications of this shift are significant. The post-World War II era was largely defined by a "rules-based international order," a system designed by the U.S. and its allies to promote stability and cooperation. This order, while imperfect, generally constrained unilateral action and encouraged adherence to shared standards. However, the current administration's approach, as articulated by figures like Stephen Miller, dismisses this order as a mere "veneer," arguing that foreign policy has always been about "strength and power."

Michael Froman, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, articulates the potential consequences of abandoning this established order. He notes that while power has always been a factor in international relations, the post-WWII strategy of building a system that other countries buy into has, for 80 years, broadly kept the peace. The current administration's decision to sideline this framework in favor of a return to a hard power-centric approach, where dominance and unilateral action are paramount, risks destabilizing the global landscape. This approach, while leveraging America's undeniable military might, could alienate allies and embolden adversaries.

"What this administration has done is said, look, we're going to put that to the side. And, um, we're going to go back, in many respects, to, as you suggested, an earlier period, where what mattered was your hard power and how you exercised it, and whether any other country could stand up to you in doing so."

-- Michael Froman

The podcast highlights that this is not necessarily about isolationism, as some might have predicted for a second Trump term. Instead, it's about a deeply engaged, albeit different, form of international participation. The focus shifts from multilateral agreements and shared governance to direct U.S. influence and control, whether through regime change in Venezuela or state-building initiatives in Gaza. This active, personal involvement by the president, while potentially leaving a personal mark, could fundamentally alter the world order by prioritizing national power assertion over collective security and diplomatic consensus. The delayed payoff of a stable, rules-based system is being traded for the immediate gratification of perceived strength and unilateral action.

Key Action Items

• Immediate Action (Next Quarter): Re-evaluate existing trade agreements and tariffs through a historical lens, considering potential 19th-century parallels and their downstream consequences on global supply chains and diplomatic relations.
• Immediate Action (Next Quarter): Analyze the influence of emerging technology sectors (like AI) on political donations and policy-making, drawing parallels to historical industrial-political relationships.
• Immediate Action (Next 6 Months): Conduct scenario planning for a world where the rules-based international order erodes, focusing on how U.S. allies and adversaries might react to increased unilateralism.
• Longer-Term Investment (12-18 Months): Develop strategies for engaging with nations experiencing U.S.-led "regime change" or territorial assertion, focusing on de-escalation and finding common ground beyond immediate power plays.
• Longer-Term Investment (18-24 Months): Invest in understanding and potentially shaping the discourse around global governance and international norms, anticipating that a return to 19th-century power politics will face significant resistance and create new forms of instability.
• Immediate Action (Next Quarter): For organizations involved in international trade or global security, identify areas where U.S. policy shifts might create competitive disadvantages or unforeseen operational risks due to a less predictable global environment.
• Immediate Action (This Quarter): Foster internal discussions about the trade-offs between immediate perceived gains from unilateral action versus the long-term benefits of a stable, predictable international framework.