Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national security adviser under President Barack Obama, recently expressed his concerns about President Donald Trump’s foreign policy in The New York Times.
In his article, “This Isn’t the Donald Trump America Elected,” Rhodes critiques the administration’s approach to international relations, warning that it departs from America’s historical commitments to freedom, self-determination, and collective security.
A Radical Departure from Campaign Promises
Rhodes acknowledges that many Americans, including himself, support reforming the post-9/11 national security consensus. However, he argues that Trump’s foreign policy is not merely a fulfillment of campaign promises. While Trump campaigned on an “America First” platform, emphasising nationalism and economic protectionism, he did not advocate for the dismantling of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the conquest of Greenland, or the reoccupation of the Panama Canal. Instead, his administration’s erratic pronouncements and actions suggest a broader departure from traditional American diplomacy.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ben Rhodes and Barack Obama on Air Force One (2013)
“Many Americans, myself included, support overhauling the sclerotic national security consensus that has governed our policies since Sept. 11, 2001.
“Yet it would be wrong to dismiss Mr. Trump’s dizzying array of pronouncements and executive actions on foreign policy as simply the fulfillment of his campaign promises.
“He did not run on the dismantling of U.S.A.I.D., the conquest of Greenland or the occupation of Gaza,” – Ben Rhodes.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Trump’s insistence on reclaiming the Panama Canal and seizing Greenland raises concerns about his motivations. According to Rhodes, these demands could be posturing tactics designed to renegotiate economic and military agreements. However, they may also indicate a genuine belief in territorial expansion, a notion that aligns more with historical strongman tactics than with contemporary diplomatic strategy.
The Implications of Trump’s Territorial Aspirations
Rhodes highlights a critical shift in America’s global role: Trump is the first U.S. president in recent history to openly advocate territorial expansion. This approach undermines the principles that have guided U.S. foreign policy since World War II. While past presidents have engaged in interventions and strategic alliances, they have generally upheld the idea of self-determination and international cooperation. Trump’s rhetoric, by contrast, suggests a return to an era where power is measured by land acquisition and military dominance.
Such policies could have profound consequences. If the United States pursues territorial expansion, it risks alienating allies and emboldening adversaries. Other global powers, such as China and Russia, may feel justified in their own territorial ambitions, increasing the likelihood of geopolitical conflict. Additionally, nations that once relied on the U.S. for security may seek alternative alliances, further eroding American influence on the world stage.
A Crisis of American Identity
Rhodes argues that Trump’s foreign policy reflects a deeper crisis: a loss of American self-confidence and self-respect. By disregarding long-standing commitments to democracy and international order, the administration signals that the United States no longer sees itself as a leader in global affairs. Instead, its actions suggest a transactional, short-term approach that prioritizes immediate gains over long-term stability.
This shift has not gone unnoticed. Around the world, U.S. allies and adversaries alike are recalibrating their expectations. European nations are questioning the reliability of American leadership, while authoritarian regimes may interpret Trump’s policies as a green light for expansionist ambitions. If the United States is perceived as abandoning its traditional values, other nations may step in to fill the vacuum, reshaping the global order in ways that do not align with American interests.
The Need for a New Vision
Rhodes concludes with a call to action: those who oppose Trump’s foreign policy must recognize that there is no returning to a pre-Trump era. The post-World War II order, shaped by American ideals of cooperation and democracy, cannot simply be restored. Instead, the U.S. must develop a new vision for constructive global engagement.
This requires more than opposing territorial aggression or defending foreign aid. It demands a fundamental reassessment of national identity and self-interest. Rather than reacting to the whims of strongmen, the United States must redefine its role in the world based on shared values and mutual interests. This means strengthening alliances, investing in diplomatic solutions, and demonstrating that American leadership is built on principles rather than power alone.
Trump’s foreign policy represents a significant departure from traditional American diplomacy. His territorial ambitions, erratic pronouncements, and disregard for historical alliances have raised concerns about the future of U.S. global leadership. As Rhodes argues, those who are alarmed by these developments must look inward and rethink what it means for America to engage with the world.
The challenge, as Rhodes sees it, is not merely to oppose Trump’s policies but to craft a new, sustainable vision for America’s role in the 21st century—one that reaffirms its commitment to global stability, democratic values, and responsible leadership.
Ben Rhodes is the author of “After the Fall: The Rise of Authoritarianism in the World We’ve Made.”
This article was originally published by EU Global News.
