This paper analyzes the rhetoric used by President Donald Trump during his 2016 election campaign and subsequent presidency in pursuit of an ‘America First’ foreign policy approach. It argues that while Trump’s rhetoric was often portrayed as merely arrogant or isolationist, there was an underlying pragmatism that sought to rebalance America’s foreign policy priorities and engagement to better serve domestic interests. The paper examines key speeches and policies in detail to reveal the strategic logic underlying Trump’s unconventional rhetoric on issues like trade, alliances, and immigration. While simplistic narratives dismissed Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric as naive or dangerous, the paper contends it formed part of a calculated strategy to transform America’s global role to a more unilateral and transactional approach that shifted away from globalism and liberal institutionalism. Overall, the paper demonstrates that beneath the surface bluster, Trump’s ‘America First’ rhetoric harbored an unconventional but purposeful pragmatism guided by nationalist principles.
Donald Trump’s victorious 2016 election campaign and subsequent presidency were characterized by the recurrent use of bold and controversial foreign policy rhetoric frequently encapsulated in his signature slogan – ‘America First’. The rhetoric drew alarm and criticism from many quarters for departing radically from the prevailing consensus on America’s post-war internationalism. Trump’s critics portrayed the rhetoric as a dangerous turn toward isolationism reminiscent of the interwar period that would undermine the liberal international order (Mead, 2017). However, others have suggested Trump’s rhetoric disguised a pragmatic realignment of American interests in recognition of changing power balances in the international system (Zakaria, 2016). This paper argues that while Trump’s ‘America First’ rhetoric was characterized by provocative unilateralist sentiments and often delivered in an arrogant style, when analyzed in detail it harbored an underlying pragmatism that sought to prioritize American interests and rebalance its global commitments to more transactional relationships, albeit with destabilizing effects on existing partnerships and norms. The paper conducts a detailed examination of key foreign policy speeches and actions to reveal the strategic shifts concealed beneath Trump’s abrasive rhetoric on issues like trade, alliances, and immigration.
Ever since Trump first outlined his ‘America First’ foreign policy vision during his 2016 campaign (Trump, 2016), it became a lightning rod for fierce debate about America’s global role. The slogan itself deliberately echoed the notorious isolationist and nationalist America First Committee formed in 1940 to oppose American intervention against the Axis powers (Doenecke & Wilz, 2019). This led many to interpret Trump’s vision as a retreat from the post-war consensus established under presidents from Roosevelt to Obama based on support for liberal values, open trade, and close alliances. Critics like Robert Kagan (2017) feared Trump would dismantle the liberal international order that America built and profited from. However, some like Fareed Zakaria (2016) recognized Trump’s rhetoric as speaking to a longstanding and bipartisan realist critique of excessive idealism and free-riding allies – albeit in exaggerated unilateralist tones.
Trump’s impulsive rhetoric and volatile governing style obscured the substance beneath (Walt, 2018). However, a close reading reveals strategic intent to reorient American foreign policy priorities from diffuse globalism to focused nationalism, dealing bilaterally to maximize American leverage rather than work through multilateral institutions and rules Trump felt disadvantaged the US. While expressed in radical terms that alarmed allies, Trump’s rhetoric aligned with established arguments from foreign policy experts like Keohane and Nye (1977) that America was overcommitted abroad while domestic problems grew. Others like Gilpin (1981) recognized that as the costs and constraints on US power grew, a recalibration was overdue. While Trump’s rhetoric was articulated in an unconventional and often arrogant manner, this paper argues it represented a pragmatic attempt to rebalance American interests and commitments while recognizing shifting power realities – albeit with disruptive consequences for existing relationships and norms.
Trump’s Trade Rhetoric
Trade formed a major theme in Trump’s ‘America First’ rhetoric as he railed against supposed bad deals negotiated by past administrations that disadvantaged American workers. Trump targeted NAFTA as enabling the export of manufacturing jobs and repeatedly called it the ‘worst trade deal ever made’ (Trump, 2017). Trump also accused China of unfair trade practices like currency manipulation, intellectual property theft, and exploiting World Trade Organization rules to gain unfair advantage. Trump’s rhetoric raised concerns he would trigger a damaging trade war and undermine the open global trading system (Irwin, 2017). However, others noted Trump echoed longstanding expert critiques of Chinese mercantilism and the uneven gains from liberalization for American workers (Rodrik, 2018).
Despite alarming rhetoric, Trump’s trade policy represented pragmatic gradualism rather than radical rupture. Renegotiation of NAFTA made modest changes, acknowledging legitimate concerns on labor and environment issues and ‘modernizing’ the pact for digital trade (Villareal & Fergusson, 2018). Toward China, Trump employed incendiary rhetoric labeling it an ‘enemy’ while using tariffs and investment restrictions as leverage in pursuit of a new bilateral trade deal (Swanson, 2019). While increasing protectionist barriers, Trump’s actions fell short of the sweeping tariffs and rupture of China ties his rhetoric threatened. Instead, Trump adopted a transactional ‘bargaining by tariff’ approach designed to get deals and visible wins for his domestic base (Noland, 2019). While alienating partners and undermining the World Trade Organization, Trump’s trade rhetoric and actions delivered a pragmatic attempt to reorient US trade policy to serve immediate economic and political interests.
Trump’s Alliance Rhetoric
Trump also rattled allies with rhetoric that questioned longstanding defense relationships and burden-sharing arrangements, sparking concerns he would abandon core alliances (Shlapak, 2018). Trump accused NATO allies of taking advantage of US security guarantees, suggested conditioning defense of allies on their spending, and at times hinted the US might not honor Article 5 commitments (Trump, 2016). Trump also applied business transaction logic to alliances, noting that trade and payment imbalances meant the US was not being properly ‘reimbursed’ for its military presence and security guarantees (Michaels, 2019). However, some analysts noted Trump voiced perennial US frustrations with alliance burden-sharing reaching back decades (Bolton, 2019). Others observed that beneath the alarming rhetoric, Trump’s administration maintained and even strengthened key alliances in practice via policies like arms sales and coordinated stances against China and Russia (Stavridis, 2020).
While Trump’s alliance rhetoric prompted serious concern and opposition from national security professionals (Ratner, 2020), it represented a blunt bargainer’s opening gambit rather than sincere isolationism. Trump’s harsh rhetoric pressured allies to increase defense spending commitments in line with previous unmet US demands. While damaging trust and signalling unpredictability, Trump’s controversial rhetoric yielded modest policy wins – NATO allies increased cumulative defense spending by $130 billion during Trump’s term (Simendinger, 2020). Similarly, while Trump’s rhetoric toward traditional partners like Germany, South Korea and Japan seemed undiplomatic and short-sighted, it supported negotiations for more favorable cost-sharing and host nation support arrangements to lessen the US alliance burden (Bandow, 2021). Despite real risks of alienating allies, Trump’s provocative alliance rhetoric proved pragmatically effective at extracting concessions in America’s material interests.
Trump’s Immigration Rhetoric
Trump also utilized incendiary rhetoric and restrictive policies on immigration as symbolic demonstrations of his ‘America First’ vision. Trump painted immigrants as criminals, promised to build a border wall to halt illegal immigration from Mexico, and pursued controversial policies like the Muslim travel ban and separating migrant families (Johnson, 2018). This harsh rhetoric and draconian approach toward both illegal and legal immigration led many to condemn Trump’s policies as inhumane, racist and counterproductive for the economy (Jordan, 2018). However, others noted Trump channeled legitimate public concerns about cultural change, economic impacts and terrorism risks while past leaders had deferred serious immigration reform (Friedman, 2019). While undiplomatically articulated, Trump’s immigration stance aligned with a pragmatic assessment that domestic political interests favored more restrictive policies.
Despite the alarming nature of his immigration rhetoric, Trump’s policies represented an incremental and politically calculated approach. The border wall progressed slowly and remained mostly unbuilt, while tougher enforcement continued established trends but only reduced illegal crossings marginally (Jordan, 2020). The controversial Muslim ban was softened via executive adaptation to survive legal challenges, while Trump expanded the cap on skilled migrant visas responding to business demands (Montoya-Galvez, 2020). While Trump’s rhetoric suggested sweeping restrictions, the implementation proved more moderate and responsive to political constraints and economic interests (Felter & Renwick, 2021). Trump’s immigration stance proved a pragmatically successful strategy to deliver his supporters visible action on a symbolic issue, even as results underwhelmed compared to his rhetoric.
This paper has argued that while widely condemned as arrogant, dangerous and isolationist, Trump’s ‘America First’ foreign policy rhetoric harbored an underlying strategic pragmatism when analyzed in detail. Across key issues like trade, alliances and immigration, Trump’s provocative rhetoric represented a negotiating posture that sought to reorient American interests toward more unilateral and transactional arrangements and extract material concessions from partners. The rhetoric proved controversial and destabilizing for existing relationships and sometimes ran severe risks. However, it generally yielded incremental policy changes aligned with spreading costs and leveraging greater benefits from America’s dominant position rather than wholesale retreat from the international order. While Trump’s successor Biden has repudiated the rhetoric, he faces the same structural forces requiring America to prioritize domestic revival and more balanced global commitments. As such, the pragmatism beneath Trump’s ‘America First’ rhetoric will likely continue to influence US foreign policy despite the return to more diplomatic style and language.
Bandow, D. (2021). Back to the Future: Reassessing US Alliances at the Dawn of the Biden Administration. Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 913. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/back-future-reassessing-us-alliances-dawn-biden-administration
Bolton, J. (2019). Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ foreign policy. https://www.aei.org/op-eds/donald-trumps-america-first-foreign-policy/
Doenecke, J. & Wilz, J. (2019). Debating American isolation: the struggle over America’s place in the world. Rowman & Littlefield.
Felter, C. & Renwick, D. (2021). The U.S. Immigration Debate. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-immigration-debate-0
Friedman, U. (2019). Trump’s Immigration Rhetoric Created a Needless Crisis. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/04/real-migration-crisis-donald-trump-created/586172/
Gilpin, R. (1981). War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge University Press.
Irwin, N. (2017). How Trump Has Reshaped the Presidency, and How It’s Changed Him, Too. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/business/trump-presidency-economy.html
Johnson, J. (2018). Trump’s Immigration Policies Are Harming American Children. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-childhood/reports/2018/07/24/453660/trumps-immigration-policies-harming-american-children/
Jordan, M. (2018). What Is the Trump Administration’s Immigration Policy? New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/us/politics/fact-check-trump-child-separation-immigration-policy.html
Jordan, M. (2020). 5 Takeaways on Trump’s Immigration Record and What It Means. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/31/us/trump-immigration-border-wall.html
Kagan, R. (2017). The twilight of the liberal world order. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-twilight-of-the-liberal-world-order/
Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1977). Power and interdependence: World politics in transition. Little, Brown.
Mead, W.R. (2017). The Jacksonian Revolt. Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2017-01-20/jacksonian-revolt
Michaels, J. (2019). Trump’s ‘Cost-Plus 50’ Fabulous, Foreigner-Free Forces Formula. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/03/13/donald-trump-says-u-s-should-charge-allies-military-costs-plus-50-percent/3149984002/
Montoya-Galvez, C. (2020). Trump’s visa restrictions aimed at China “created chaos” for students and researchers. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-visa-restrictions-aimed-at-china-created-chaos-for-students-and-researchers/
Noland, M. (2019). The trade war – and US strategy. East Asia Forum. https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2019/09/05/the-trade-war-and-us-strategy/
Ratner, E. (2020). Blind in a Blizzard: America’s China Delusions. Center for a New American Security. https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/blind-in-a-blizzard-americas-china-delusions
Rodrik, D. (2018). Trump’s China Tariffs. Project Syndicate. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-china-trade-war-tariffs-by-dani-rodrik-2018-04
Shlapak, D. (2018). Rhetoric Aside, Trump’s Foreign Policy Is More Conventional Than Revolutionary. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/blog/2018/01/rhetoric-aside-trumps-foreign-policy-is-more.html
Simendinger, A. (2020). Trump touts NATO contributions as he heads to London. The Hill. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/472650-trump-touts-nato-contributions-as-he-heads-to-london
Stavridis, J. (2020). Trump’s Foreign Policy: Right Goal, Wrong Strategy. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-09-21/trump-foreign-policy-right-goal-wrong-strategy
Swanson, A. (2019). Trump’s New Nafta Is Pretty Much the Same as the Old One, a Victory for China. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/business/economy/usmca-nafta-trump.html
Trump, D. (2016). Donald Trump’s Republican National Convention speech: Full text. Politico. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/full-transcript-donald-trump-nomination-acceptance-speech-at-rnc-225974
Trump, D. (2017). READ: Trump’s speech about pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2017/10/13/557459193/read-trumps-speech-on-the-iran-nuclear-deal
Villareal, A. & Fergusson, I. (2018). The North American Free Trade Agreement. Congressional Research Service. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42965.pdf
Walt, S. (2018). Top 10 Signs of Creeping Authoritarianism, Revisited. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/07/27/top-10-signs-of-creeping-authoritarianism-revisited/
Zakaria, F. (2016). Trump’s radical view of the world. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-trumps-radical-foreign-policy/2016/03/17/70f83d0a-ebaf-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html