Realist or Just Anti-Liberal? Trump's Foreign Policy in Retrospect*
| Published date | 01 March 2024 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00207020241234245 |
| Author | Robert S. Snyder |
| Date | 01 March 2024 |
| Subject Matter | Scholarly Essays |
Realist or Just Anti-Liberal?
Trump’s Foreign Policy in
Retrospect*
Robert S. Snyder
Department of Political Science, Southwestern University,
Georgetown, Texas, USA
Abstract
Donald Trump’s foreign policy has been characterized as realist. His “America First”
theme, economic nationalism, and scorn for traditional alliances and international
norms are alleged evidence. But was Trump’s foreign policy realist? Instead, it is better
seen as anti-liberal. Trump was most realist in his recognition of China as a great
power rival not committed to liberal values. But he was also a protectionist. With
respect to Russia, Europe, the Middle East, and various international issues,
Trump’s foreign policy was decidedly more anti-liberal than realist. The shocking
event of January 6, 2021 suggests that Trump’s foreign policy be re-evaluated in a dif-
ferent light: Trump sought to promote anti-liberal values abroad in order to advance
them at home. This article evaluates Trump’s foreign policy in light of these two the-
oretical perspectives.
Keywords
Trump, foreign policy, realism, liberalism, China
Since his candidacy for president, Donald Trump has been labelled as a foreign policy
realist. His rallying cry of “America First,”support for economic nationalism, and
scorn for alliances and the promotion of liberal values worldwide all have been seen
*The author benefited from the comments of the anonymous reviewers.
Corresponding author:
Robert S. Snyder, Department of Political Science, Southwestern University, 1001 University Avenue,
Georgetown, Texas, 78627, USA.
Email: snyderb@southwestern.edu
Scholarly Essay
International Journal
2024, Vol. 79(1) 79–95
© The Author(s) 2024
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00207020241234245
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijx
as representing a realist foreign policy. This is quite an assertion, for US presidents
since the end of the Cold War, if not before, have been viewed as promoting primarily
liberal values abroad. Daniel Drezner stated before the 2016 election: “This is realism’s
moment in the foreign policy sun.”
1
Similarly, in offering support for Trump’s foreign
policy, Randall Schweller wrote: “Trump has sent the message that the US will now
look after its interests, narrowly defined, not the interests of the so-called global com-
munity, even at the expense of long-standing alliances. This worldview is fundamen-
tally realist in nature.”
2
Was Trump’s foreign policy realist? More broadly, how should
it be evaluated in retrospect?
Trump’s foreign policy was not realist. Instead, it was, in motivation and actuality,
mainly anti-liberal. Certainly, there were signs of realism. By increasing defence spend-
ing, for instance,and with respect to US dealings withChina Trump’s foreign policy was
most realist, but an alternative explanation is that it was simply anti-liberal. And in
dealing with Russia, Europe, and the Middle East, and with security, trade, and transna-
tional issues, Trump’s foreign policy certainly was less realist than it was anti-liberal. A
realist foreign policy en tails that states promote narr ow conceptions of their nat ional
security and eschew other foreign policy goals. More specifically, as a great power,
the US should balance against other potential peer competitors. Liberalism entails the
promotion of democracy, free trade, and institutions committed to liberal values. An
illiberal foreign policy supports authoritarian leaders, protectionism, and unilateralism.
The shocking attempted insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, the last
event of Trump’s presidency, suggests that even his foreign policies should be
re-evaluated with an eye toward how they might have facilitated illiberal goals, not
only abroad, but at home. Some have considered Trump to have had little interest in
foreign policy, but his domestic policies were standard Republican policies (largely
tax cuts and deregulation), and it was his foreign policy that was distinctive. Jan
Niklas Rolf goes so far as to suggest that foreign policy was epiphenomena to domestic
politics for Trump, but Trump was interested in changing world politics.
3
Indeed,
Trump sought to create a world more conducive to illiberal and authoritarian values
in order to advance them at home, something that international relations scholars
have called the “second-image reversed.”
4
1. Daniel W. Drezner, “So when will realists endorse Donald Trump? What would he do?”The
Washington Post, 1 February 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/01/
so-when-will-realists-endorse-donald-trump/ (accessed 28 January 2024).
2. Randall Schweller, “Three cheers for Trump’s foreign policy: What the establishment misses,”Foreign
Affairs 96, no. 5 (2018): 133–142; see also “Why Trump now: A third image explanation,”in Robert
Jervis, Francis J. Gavin, Joshua Rovner, and Diane N. Labrosse, eds., Chaos in the Liberal Order: The
Trump Presidency and International Politics in the Twenty-First Century (New York: Columbia
University Press, 2018), 22–39.
3. Jan Niklas Rolf, “Donald Trump’s Jacksonian and Jeffersonian foreign policy,”Policy Studies 42, no.
5–6 (2021): 662–681.
4. Peter Gourevitch, “The second image reversed: The international sources of domestic politics,”
International Organization 32, no. 4 (1978): 881–912.
80 International Journal 79(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial