‘America First’ Is a Lie

America has *always* been about putting America first. Trump’s “America First” movement is about something else entirely.

Trump Forever. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Donald Trump and Republicans explain their worldview by calling it “America First.” That’s a lie.

American foreign policy has always put America first. That’s what nations do. It’s axiomatic. Why did the United States do Lend-Lease with Britain before we entered World War II and bankroll the Marshall Plan afterwards? Why did we airlift supplies into West Berlin? Why did we spend trillions of dollars on nuclear weapons that have never been used? Why do we police the global shipping lanes and ensure stability in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East?

It’s not because we’re nice.

It’s because these actions further our interests. They make America safer and wealthier. They check the rise of rival powers. They put America first.

---

Leadership is how we have put America first from the time we became a global superpower.

Trump and Republicans want to retreat from that leadership not because they want to put “America first,” but because they want to elevate Russia and China to peer status.

And why do they want to do that? Because they think that Russia and China can be helpful with Trump’s internal political project of dismantling democracy and establishing permanent rule.

Trump’s “America first” policy is actually about selling out America’s interests in exchange for foreign assistance in putting Trump first.

---

1. Always First

In the roughest possible terms, there have been two American eras: Pre- and Post-Hyperpower.

From her Founding to World War I, America was weak. This fundamental fact was why our leaders in that era were wary of foreign entanglements. Geography provided us with a formidable moat, but we were not a great power with the ability to shape events on the world stage. So we tended our own garden and tried to grow according to the rule sets developed by Europeans.

Those rules were quite congenial to us; our population and industrial base grew. After Europe set itself on fire in 1914, we emerged as a peer—a great power, but one in its infancy and unsure of how to leverage its newfound position.

The original “America First” caucus emerged during this period, made up of people whose conception of America was still rooted in her past weakness. They did not have the mental framework to understand that as America’s relative position in the world had changed, so should her approach to the world. She no longer had to work within rule sets imposed by others; she could make the rules for everyone else.

The isolationist movement did not accept this shift and could not see the advantages America would reap by assuming the role of global superpower.

---

These men were wrong; but at least they were honestly wrong.¹ The world was changing and they simply couldn’t adjust to it.

We all know what happened next: America became a dominant global power. Then, after the Second World War, we became the dominant global power. For the next 75 years we ruled the world.

During this Pax Americana, America was the indispensable nation. What does that mean, really?

It meant that no country, anywhere on earth, could act without considering our interests.

Could Sweden pursue nuclear weapons? Could Russia put missiles in Cuba? Could Egypt attack Israel?

In every case, the thought process in foreign capitals went like this:

1. Thesis: Identify what they wanted.

2. Antithesis: Determine if America would permit this objective.

3. Synthesis: Figure out how to pursue their objective in such a way as would be amenable to the Yankees. Or, at least, wouldn’t be likely to arouse too much Yankee ire.

That, my friends, is a power so vast you can’t even conceive of it. And it didn’t just apply to our adversaries—it applied to our friends, too.

---

Part of the way the United States leveraged our commanding position was by creating new types of alliances. For the most part, before 1945 allies were countries that agreed to fight wars together . . . and that’s about it. The United States had (and still has) plenty of these kinds of alliances—but after 1945 we also developed a deeper, more important kind of relationship.

The relationships in NATO, and among the Five Eyes, and with America’s other really close allies—Japan, South Korea—aren’t merely military agreements. They’re kinships. They transcend peace and war; they’re diplomatic, political, cultural, and economic.

Again: This is leverage. It means that when we go to war, we bring a huge crew with us. Other countries are willing to expend resources, and even shed blood, to stay aligned with us. Even for a contentious war like Iraq, we got nearly 40 countries to participate in some way or another.

This makes things cheaper for us. The Soviet Union and China and Iran have to spend money to dominate and subjugate their clients. Our allies spend money on our behalf, pursuing our interests, because we have shaped them in our image.

That’s what the “kinship” stuff is about. Our allies aren’t just allies. They adopted our rule-sets and hitched their interests to ours.

---

This multiplication of power wasn’t “good” for America—it was amazing for America. Over the course of 75 years we became wealthier than any civilization has ever been. Our influence over the globe became more far-reaching than that of any empire from the pages of history. Our lead over our next closest rivals expanded by the year.

Our currency became the world’s reserve currency, which allows us to accumulate debt and spend money more cheaply than everyone else. Our markets became the most valuable markets. Global systems of trade were built to our specifications.

And our security became impregnable. It wasn’t just that the American homeland was secure. We were able to turn former adversaries into allies. First Germany and Japan and then the former Eastern bloc nations of Europe and even, for a time, Russia.

Did the exercise of such awesome power cost us anything? Sure. There were some small and savage wars—Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. America paid some of the costs in blood; but mostly we paid with treasure. Which was—again—an excellent deal for us. Because we have more treasure than any nation in history.

Here is the thing you must understand: America will win any contest determined by the ability to spend money.

Rightly understood, this is just another example of how America created rules to benefit ourselves: Of course the richest country in history would build a system in which it could exert influence on the global order by spending money: Because the ability to spend money is one of our key advantages.

And yet today’s “America First” class thinks that spending money in order to shape the world is some kind of weakness.

---

2. Power Is Power

People have a hard time understanding soft power.

Why do we spend $10 billion a year fighting HIV/AIDS in foreign countries? I have to keep saying this: It’s not because we’re nice.

We spend that money in order to stabilize the global order. If AIDS runs wild in one country, that creates ripple effects. It destabilizes the local economy, risking political instability, which in turn risks regional instability. All of which poses some small danger to the established order which—QED—benefits America.

We spend that $10 billion to preserve the system that benefits us.

That’s what soft power is.

If that doesn’t make sense to you, think about hard power. Consider the ballistic missile submarine.

---

In 1959 America deployed the first ballistic missile sub (commonly referred to as a “boomer”). USS George Washington was designed for one purpose: to launch nuclear missiles at the Soviet Union.

In the ensuing decades, our boomer fleet multiplied. We developed three new classes of SSBN before launching the vaunted Ohio-class, which is now nearing the end of its service. We have a new program, the Columbia-class boat, the first of which is currently under construction.

In the 66-year history of the SSBN program, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars even though none of our boomers has ever fulfilled their designed purpose of launching a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile.

Is that wasteful spending? Does that make us “suckers”?

No. The boomers forced the Soviet Union into another money fight with us and—see above—money fights are the contests in which America always holds the biggest advantage. Thus the boomer program contributed to the peaceful fall of communism. Today our boomers are part of the triad that deters Russia’s and China’s use of nuclear weapons while forcing them to spend their relatively scarce resources in competition with us.

Spending money on nuclear ballistic missile subs is the same as spending money on AIDS prevention in Africa. Power is power is power. And any time America can exert power simply by spending money it’s a win for us.

Because we have the most money.

---

This stuff isn’t quantum mechanics. American leadership in the world benefits America. First and foremost. To the extent that it also benefits other countries, that’s great. Good for us.

But that’s not why we do it. That’s never been why we do it.

The people who want to pull back America’s leadership in the world under the pretense of being for “America First” are making us weaker, poorer, and less secure. They are giving away our long-term strategic advantages. They are making a world in which other countries do not have to ask themselves, “But how will the Americans respond?” before they act.

And for what? For saving a few hundred billion dollars? The whole point of being the strongest, wealthiest country on the planet is so that you have resources to deploy. That’s what the money’s for.

---

So what are these people up to? Are they just stupid? Does JD Vance not understand that, in giving away America’s leadership advantage, he is making us smaller and more vulnerable? Do these people not get that they are hastening into existence a multipolar world in which America is not the dominant power but merely a regional player that then becomes hostage to the interests of other countries?

---

3. They Like the Nazis

In the 1930s some people in the America First movement just couldn’t get their heads around the new world order. Their mental model for foreign affairs was stuck in 1900 when America was a second-rate power.

But others in the America First movement were not so innocent. They were “America First” because they liked the Nazis. Adopting the pose of isolationism was the way they could further the interests of Nazism abroad and—they hoped—eventually at home.

That’s what’s going on with our “America First” movement today.

---

Trump and Vance want to trade away America’s leadership position in the world not because they think it will benefit our country, but because they think it will benefit them domestically. In the long term. If you catch my drift.

As last week’s events made clear, it is not the case that the Trump administration is retreating into isolationism from world events.

No.

The Trump administration has switched sides. Trump now sees himself as allied with Vladimir Putin against Ukraine and Europe.

Why?

Because Trump isn’t concerned with the interests of the United States. He’s concerned with the interests—and the power—of Donald Trump.

And Trump understands that Putin has already—and can in the future—help him maintain power in America.

That’s it. That’s the ballgame. Trump is on the side of dictators because he hopes to become a dictator—and he believes that if he helps further their interests, they will help him further his.

The goal of “America First” isn’t “America First.”

It’s “Trump Forever.”

1. Not all of them were “honestly wrong.” Some of them just really liked Nazis. Plus ça change. More on this in a moment.