Liberal Hegemony is Dead

Liberal hegemony refers to a foreign policy strategy in which a dominant state actively seeks to spread liberal democratic values across the globe, foster an open and interconnected international economy, and reinforce international institutions that align with its ideological and economic interests. The underlying goal of this approach is to establish a global order that mirrors the hegemon’s own political and economic systems, thereby ensuring both putative stability and the promotion of liberal democratic norms.

This strategy, associated primarily with the United States’ post-World War II foreign policy, has been justified on the grounds that a world of liberal democracies would be more peaceful, economically prosperous, and aligned with U.S. interests. This is false. Critics believe that liberal hegemony leads to unnecessary conflicts, overstretches the hegemon’s resources, and provokes backlash from rival states that reject the imposition of foreign values. Liberal hegemony remains a costly and ineffective long-term strategy for the United States. The Trump Administration’s reconsideration of these misguided assumptions is no less than a schism from the post-1945 liberal international order.

During President Donald Trump’s first term, and already in fewer than 100 days into his second, U.S. foreign policy has seen a significant and deliberate departure from the principles of liberal hegemony. Trump’s administration, embodying an “America First” doctrine, has adopted a more unilateral and transactional approach to international relations, prioritizing national sovereignty, economic self-interest, and strategic flexibility over multilateral cooperation and the promotion of democratic values abroad.

This shift is evident in multiple aspects of Trump’s foreign policy, including his frequent criticism of long-standing alliances, imposition of tariffs on both allies and adversaries – China, Canada, and Mexico have garnered the president’s primary attention. His use of tariffs, trade restrictions, and renegotiation of trade agreements demonstrate a shift toward the use of “economic force” to safeguard domestic economic priorities. Trump argues that previous trade deals disadvantaged American workers and industries, which justifies asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis those three nations, and even the European Union to make concessions in trade negotiations.

Another notable aspect of Trump’s foreign policy is his strong approach to our European allies and NATO, an institution that embodies the failure of liberal hegemony. Trump correctly criticizes NATO member states for failing to meet their defense spending commitments, arguing that the financial burden of collective security falls disproportionately on the United States. His rhetoric and actions—including publicly questioning NATO’s relevance and hinting at a reduced U.S. commitment—have led to heightened tensions within the alliance. European leaders express concern over the reliability of U.S. security guarantees, with some states increasing their defense spending out of fear that the United States might reduce its role in transatlantic security. Trump's approach to NATO marks a significant departure from the post-World War II norm, where the United States had traditionally led and reinforced the alliance as a pillar of western security.

America’s shift is imperative. If our European allies do not take on greater responsibility for their continent’s own defense—including the war in Ukraine—the United States should strongly consider genuinely minimizing our engagement in or even withdrawing from NATO. We would be far better off focusing on the ample security issues in our own Western Hemisphere. The era of the United States as the guarantor of global—and even merely European—security, is at an end. Pragmatism, not ideology, must henceforth guide our foreign policy. The current Administration cannot shift quickly enough – spreading democracy under the guise of liberal “nation-building” has entangled the United States in conflicts with few strategic benefits for the past 30 years, as well as mired us in the failed anti-Communist Domino Theory that led to our disastrous 20-year engagement in Vietnam.

Unlike previous administrations, which sought to maintain and expand the liberal international order, Trump views many multilateral institutions and commitments as burdensome and detrimental to American prosperity. His administration questions the value of traditional diplomatic partnerships and openly expresses skepticism toward global institutions such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and others that place undue burdens on the United States, including long-standing military alliances such as NATO long viewed as sacrosanct.

Trump’s approach has been perceived by many as a rupture from the post-1945 liberal international order. The shift in policy is precisely such a schism. Supporters correctly contend that Trump's approach represents a necessary recalibration of U.S. foreign policy, correcting decades of overextension and misplaced priorities.

President Trump’s refocus on American interests in realist terms will define the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy for decades. It’s important to note that our “America First” doctrine is not merely a reaction to the United States’ post-WWII experiences with failed western institutions. In 1823, President James Monroe warned European powers against interfering in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere, declaring that any such interference would be viewed as a threat to the United States. For 200 years, the Monroe Doctrine has been a pillar of America’s grand strategy.

The Monroe Doctrine may exact from the United States a price in the new multipolar order. If the Western Hemisphere is ours, is it the United States’ prerogative to challenge China’s assertions to power in the South China Sea? In Ukraine, does the United States have moral ground to stand on when Russia rightfully criticizes the West for failed promises beginning in 1991 not to advance NATO to its border, which Russia understably sees as a direct threat to its national security?

The elimination of liberal hegemony presents the opportunity to shift our long-strained relationships with China and Russia, among others, to ones of respect, rather than the imposition of western norms and institutions. International relations, even with those whose positions may challenge our interests in important aspects, need not be zero-sum. It is possible to view the world as consisting of friends and possible friends—not enemies—and to act accordingly.

If we continue to assert the Monroe Doctrine in order to repossess the Panama Canal, acquire Greenland, and forge a new relationship with Canada, we will need to refrain from interfering in the strategic interests of other great powers—namely, China and Russia—when they do not threaten ours. As the economist and international relations scholar Jeffrey Sachs states, the United States needs to learn when to leave good enough alone.

Liberal hegemony is an outdated framework that no longer advances U.S. interests and must be replaced with politics that prioritize national security, economic independence, and strategic autonomy. The United States must adjust to a new, realist global order and redefine a more limited role in global diplomacy. Strategies that prioritize economic and security partnerships must trump outdated, expansionist liberal ideology. We need no longer be—nor should we wish to be—either the world’s policeman or its moral compass. The United States must dictate its own course based on interests that promote America First while maintaining and demonstrating strength and respect in a multipolar world. It remains to be seen whether the 21st century will witness another American Century.

Hashtags — #LiberalHegemony #ForeignPolicy #AmericaFirst #Realism #USGrandStrategy #TrumpDoctrine #NATO #MonroeDoctrine #MultipolarWorld
#NationalSovereignty #Geopolitics #InternationalRelations #JeffreySachs
#GreatPowerCompetition #USChinaRelations #USRussiaRelations
#LiberalOrder #AmericanConservatism