Trump’s first year of his second term has been marked by a tumultuous relationship with the American people and the international community. As Trump seeks seemingly opposing goals for America’s future, gauging the United States’ future role on the world stage has become challenging.
During his inaugural address in January 2025, Trump stated, “Every single day… I will, very simply, put America first.” This “America first” ideology has led to a juxtaposition of goals— one characterized by isolationism and another advancing neo-imperialism. The administration’s sweeping tariffs on longstanding trade allies and strong-armed immigration crackdown reflect a push to purge outside influence from American life. However, Trump has simultaneously sought conflict in an attempt to expand America’s global position. He has orchestrated a military operation in Venezuela to kidnap former president Nicholas Maduro, threatened to annex Greenland and bombed alleged nuclear enrichment sites in Iran. How does a president who touts “America First” ideology also commit to an active interventionist presence in other countries?
While Trump’s conflicting ideals during his second term may be confusing, they both have historical precedent. Eben Levey, an assistant professor in RIT’s History department, drew comparisons between Trump’s policies and those dating back to the 1920s Progressive Era.
Trump’s tariffs reflect protectionist attitudes dating back to the interwar period following World War I. During this period, the U.S. sought to distance itself from an international community that had just waged the most destructive war to date. This attitude carried well into World War II, with America staying neutral until the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. However, interventionism wasn’t uncommon during these years either.
“First under President McKinley in 1898, and then Roosevelt, in the early 1900s, and later Wilson, [America] repeatedly stepped into nations across the hemisphere,” Levey stated. “This was in order to open up those nations to U.S. markets.”
However, there are distinct differences between Trump’s brand of interventionism and that of the 20th century. During the mid-20th century, American foreign policy reflected a desire to stave off possible communist governments in South America. Levey notes that “The intervention of the United States and Latin American governments during the Cold War had to be premised on the notion of Latin American self-determination.” Trump’s neo-imperialism seems to draw from even earlier, taking notes out of the centuries of non-apologetic intervention of imperial powers before World War I.
When looking at Trump’s foreign policy thus far, it is hard to grasp, at best, and incoherent at worst. Associate professor of Political Science Benjamin Banta attempted to reconcile this phenomenon, arguing that the administration’s policy is rather purposeful.
“It’s been mentioned that [Trump] seems to flip-flop between imperialism and isolationism, and I think that’s a flawed way of looking at things, and maybe that’s the surface level,” Banta noted. “The way to reconcile those two seemingly distinct things is to recognize what’s really going on is that we have a foreign policy first and foremost driven by…monetary gain by a few fairly corrupt actors.”
Banta then speculated about the possible impact Trump’s irrational foreign policy could have on current U.S. allies. “I’ve heard countless anecdotes about …European ambassador X or leader Y saying behind closed doors to incredulous Americans. ‘It doesn’t matter when Trump’s gone. It’s over, right? We’ll never trust you again.” He prefaces this statement by discussing how the world may look towards moving away from the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency, destroying the United States’ foundation of dollar dominance on the global stage.
Jeannette Mitchell, an associate professor in RIT’s Economics department, discussed the public implications of removing the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency. If the world were to move off the U.S. dollar, the strength and value of the dollar would plummet.
“If the dollar fails, that means the dollar can buy fewer things than, say, the euro can. So, what that means is that whenever a currency depreciates like that, you would expect domestic inflation as a result as businesses try to recoup some of the losses they’re suffering,” Mitchell noted.
When U.S. companies import products with a weak dollar, more money needs to be paid by the company than with a stronger dollar. These charges are often then passed on to the consumer to ensure the companies continue to make money. What this all means for students is that the products you buy anywhere with U.S. currency will cost a lot more money. When asked about whether the move would happen in the near future, Mitchell dismissed the possibility, arguing it is highly unlikely due to the United States’ stance as the world’s largest economy.
With multiple X posts a day and various brazen press conferences, it can be hard to keep up with the Trump administration’s current foreign policy stance. Although foreign relations can feel insignificant to the average student, drastic changes by the current administration have rippling effects across American life. Thankfully, the possibility of U.S. global decline is considered unlikely in the near future, according to RIT professors.
