Most conditions in American foreign policy discourse are misunderstood or politically accused of “isolationism.”
The term, often used as a political weapon, reminds us of the image of a retreating America, indifferent to global challenges.
But reality is more complicated. For example, some commentators argue that President Donald Trump’s return to the White House marks a new era of isolationism. However, some argue that his foreign policy is similar to “sovereignty.” This advocates international engagement only when it directly serves international engagement, giving freedom to national autonomy and decision-making from external constraints.
Understanding the role of isolationism in American policy requires a closer look at its historical roots and political use.
“Interactions of the Alliance”
The idea of avoiding foreign entanglements has been part of America’s strategic thinking since the country’s founding. President George Washington’s famous warning of “alliance intertwining” reflects his desire to isolate the young republic from European conflicts.
Throughout the 19th century, this sentiment shaped our policies, but not exclusive. The country expanded its influence in the Western Hemisphere, maintained strong economic ties overseas, and sometimes intervened in regional issues.
This careful approach allowed the US to develop its economy and military power without being deeply caught up in European competition.
After World War I, isolationism became more prominent. The incredible human and financial costs of the war have led many Americans to question their deep international involvement. President Woodrow Wilson’s skepticism about the League of Nations reinforced this sentiment, with the United States passing a neutral act designed to keep the country out of foreign wars in the 1930s. However, this approach has proven unsustainable.
Although increasingly involved in the European conflict prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the day officially led the United States to World War II, marking the decisive end to traditional isolationism. The conclusion of the war changed America’s strategic thinking, realizing that even partial departure is not an option in a globalized world.
Separationism as a slur
In postwar eras, isolationism was left to the terminology of political politics from a consistent strategic perspective. During the Cold War, those who opposed military alliances such as NATO and US intervention in South Korea and Vietnam were often rejected as isolated irrespective of their actual policy preferences.
This framing alienated critics of the global involvement of the US, even if their concerns were based on strategic prudence rather than a reflexive desire to withdraw from the world.
The same pattern continued in the 21st century. In debates over the US involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine, critics of vast military commitments have often been labelled isolated as despite advocating for foreign policy readjustment rather than complete liberation.
Many people who wanted to put an end to America’s “eternal war” were not advocating for a global retreat, but rather prioritizing national interests for the broad defense of the so-called rules-based international order.
The lasting myth is that isolationism represents a complete departure from the world. Historically, even at its peak, US isolationism was by no means absolute. Trade, diplomacy and cultural exchange continued even during periods marked by reluctance to intervene militarily. What interventionist critics have historically sought is diplomatic prudence. Avoid unnecessary wars while ensuring protection of central national interests.
Move beyond isolationism
In recent years, “control” has gained traction as a more accurate and useful framework for US foreign policy. Unlike isolationism, restraint does not mean withdrawing from global issues, but advocates a more selective and strategic approach.
Supporters argue that the US should avoid unnecessary wars, focus on core national interests, and work with its allies to maintain stability rather than resorting to unilateral military action. This perspective acknowledges the risk of overexpansion, recognizing the limitations of American power and the need for international involvement. Proponents of the restraint suggest that realigning US foreign policy can help countries address appeals to domestic concerns while maintaining a strong international presence in places where they matter most.
As the US reevaluates decades of intervention, restraint provides an intermediate path between withdrawal and unbound global activity. It encourages a more thoughtful and sustainable approach to foreign policy that prioritizes long-term stability and national interests over automatic involvement in conflict.
I think moving beyond the outdated, politically charged debate on isolationism will allow for a more productive conversation about how the US can engage globally in ways that are effective and align with its strategic interests.
