Series: Retrenchment or Reimagination?
Where Do We Go From Here?
We’ve slashed foreign aid.
Gutted our diplomatic corps.
Withdrawn from multilateral institutions.
And reframed American leadership as burden, not responsibility.
But the question now is not what we’ve done.
It’s what comes next.
Because not all criticism of U.S. foreign policy is wrong.
Our ambitions have outpaced our outcomes.
We have poured resources into missions with unclear goals and undefined endpoints.
We have exported ideals we often fail to uphold at home.
So yes—retrenchment may be necessary.
But here’s the key:
Retrenchment doesn’t have to mean retreat.
It can mean recommitment—to clarity, to discipline, and to purpose.
The danger isn’t that we’re pulling back.
The danger is that we’re doing it without a map.
The Problem Isn’t Limits—It’s Cynicism
Let’s be honest: not every program deserves to survive.
Not every intervention is strategic.
Not every dollar spent overseas is well spent.
But when retrenchment becomes theatrical—when it’s done to provoke applause rather than produce outcomes—we lose more than money.
We lose meaning.
The MAGA version of retrenchment is not principled.
It’s punitive.
It treats diplomacy as weakness, compassion as naïveté, and restraint as betrayal.
In that worldview, cutting foreign aid isn’t a realignment of priorities—it’s a punchline.
Exiting UNESCO isn’t a policy—it’s a culture war skirmish.
Laying off diplomats isn’t reform—it’s revenge against “the swamp.”
That’s not strategy.
It’s sabotage dressed as sovereignty.
What a Principled Retrenchment Could Look Like
So, let’s imagine a different approach.
Let’s say we do need to narrow our focus, cut spending, and redefine our role.
How would a nation of character and confidence do that?
1. Clarity Over Chaos
We define our core interests and pursue them consistently—not through executive whiplash or Twitter-driven vendettas.
2. Presence with Purpose
We remain globally engaged—but we stop confusing engagement with intervention.
Sometimes presence means listening, not leading.
3. Selective Aid, Strategic Impact
We fund programs that work, sunset those that don’t, and measure outcomes—not optics.
Foreign aid becomes a tool for stability and alignment, not self-congratulation.
4. Diplomacy as Infrastructure
We treat embassies, cultural exchanges, and career diplomats not as bloat—but as infrastructure for influence.
The best way to avoid war is to invest in conversation.
5. Moral Credibility Starts at Home
We align what we say abroad with how we act at home.
We don’t promote human rights while banning books.
We don’t preach accountability while pardoning corruption.
We don’t lecture the world while abandoning our own.
The Role of the Citizen
If there’s one truth that MAGA rhetoric has distorted but not erased, it’s this:
The American people have every right to ask what we’re doing overseas—and why it matters to them.
The burden is not just on policymakers.
It’s on us—to demand better answers.
To push for strategy over sentiment.
To hold two truths at once:
We cannot afford endless commitments
We cannot afford to vanish from the world
It’s not either/or.
It’s how.
A Closing Reflection
The answer to broken foreign policy is not withdrawal.
It’s wisdom.
Discipline.
Coherence.
We can say no without becoming nihilists.
We can reduce our footprint without erasing our presence.
We can act in our interest without abandoning our ideals.
But only if we stop treating leadership like a performance.
Only if we stop measuring power by volume.
Only if we remember that to govern is not to dominate—but to discern.
Up Next:
Part VI: The World We Leave Behind
In the final post of this series, we’ll ask the long-view question:
What happens if America doesn’t return?
Not in force—but in spirit. In steadiness. In stewardship.
We’ll examine:
The vacuum left by a retreating superpower
The ideological export of authoritarianism
And the slow erosion of liberal norms without a liberal leader
Because what we abandon today doesn’t just disappear.
It gets claimed by someone else.
And the longer we wait to decide who we want to be—
The more likely it is the decision will be made for us.
Author’s Note
As this piece goes live, the world is watching the Trump administration attempt to broker/shepherd an end to the Ukraine-Russia war.
It is too soon to judge the outcome, but this reminds us that diplomacy is never abstract. It unfolds in real time, with real stakes.
Let us make space for these conversations — and hope they yield not division but direction, not spectacle but substance, and the best outcome for all.