On the X, formerly Twitter, page of the Oklahoma Republican Party during Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, one post sticks out from the rest: a picture of Trump and then-VP candidate JD Vance, with the caption “The Pro-Peace Ticket.” Yes, the 2025 election was a battle over grocery prices, messaging, and largely domestic issues. But as arguably the world’s foremost power, our elections are marked by international issues as well. And throughout his decade in the political spotlight, Trump has cultivated a very specific image for himself as a foreign policy leader—a dealmaker, a strongman who can get things done, whether that be through negotiation or intimidation. Although his foreign policy philosophy often involves destroying many of our established norms, the strength-based approach he takes is not entirely original. The concept of peace-through-strength, of ensuring what one views as American safety and power by establishing the US as a mighty empire unafraid to enforce its beliefs, is nothing new, but Trump has modified it into something almost unrecognizable, creating a new world order which could have the opposite effects.
From a foreign policy perspective, the 2024 election was not too different from that of 1980. When incumbent Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan faced off in that election, the foreign issue of the day was that of Americans held hostage in Iran. On November 4, 1979, Iranian students took control of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran as a protest against what they saw as U.S. interference in Iran’s domestic affairs. Over 50 American citizens were trapped inside the embassy, and the crisis quickly became a massive headache for the Carter administration.
Not surprisingly, the fallout from the ongoing hostage crisis quickly made its way into the 1980 presidential race. Throughout his one term, Carter’s approval rating on foreign policy was never above 50% and dropped to only 18% in August 1980. As Reagan campaigned against the incumbent president that year, he made it a point to emphasize what was seen as Carter’s failures on foreign policy and weakness on the hostage crisis specifically. A strategy document from Reagan’s campaign emphasized his “conditions for victory:” he had to “demonstrate to the public that he is capable of […] restoring the country to a position of world leadership and maintaining world peace.” The document also refers to Carter’s “perceived weaknesses as an ineffective and error-prone leader […] not respected by our allies or enemies.”
Carter ended up losing in a landslide, only receiving a paltry 49 electoral votes compared to Reagan’s 489. So Reagan’s perceived stiff-arming of Iran combined with Carter’s already weak image on foreign policy worked, cementing peace-through-strength as a venerable campaign strategy.
While past presidents have used peace as a signifier of strength on the campaign trail, their language tends to change once they move into the White House. In a 1980 speech, Ronald Reagan seemed to have shifted his tone slightly not long after he became Commander-in-Chief, saying that peace “has meaning only if both sides take positive actions to relax the tension.” Although peace through strength is typically considered to be a conservative ideology on our political spectrum, even conservative Presidents did not always follow the philosophy. George H.W. Bush, a Reagan disciple and his vice president for two terms, practiced a more restrained and less upfront version of foreign policy at times, differing from the “Tear down this wall!” mentality of his predecessor. And just as conservatives don’t always practice peace through strength, liberals have given us some of the foremost examples of it in action in recent decades. When Bill Clinton sent 20,000 American troops to Eastern Europe in 1996 to enforce a ceasefire in the Bosnian War, he was positioning the US as a force for peace in the worldwide public eye. And when the related conflicts in former Yugoslavia led to the Kosovo War, US troops assisted other NATO deployments in the bombing of Serbian military operations in what was then Yugoslavia, beginning a chain of events that led to today’s independent Kosovo. The strength element of these actions was obvious, with then-National Security Coordinator Richard Clarke saying “We knew that day that we had a commander-in-chief who was rational and comfortable with the use of force.” And, whether intentional or not, putting the philosophy in practice has had soft power benefits for the US as well- Kosovo considers Clinton, and by proxy, the United States a great friend to this day.
Strength-based peace has gained us allies in the past and cemented us as the center of Western democracy, but how far has that been stretched today? Ruling with an iron fist in terms of foreign affairs is a tried-and-true American tradition, and Trump’s use of it is no exception. He repeatedly campaigned on world peace, attempting to paint Joe Biden as a warmaking leader and criticizing the US withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, which was done during Biden’s presidency. Trump never explicitly names the peace-through-strength ideals which he has embraced in both rhetoric and policy, but he uses it in every possible press conference and media appearance. And these weren’t isolated incidents; they make up the strongman persona which Trump has attempted to cultivate throughout his decade in the political spotlight, and they haven’t slowed down at all since he took office for the second time. But his words and actions have gone further than the traditional use of peace and one’s supposed foreign policy expertise as a show of strength. Even before he was inaugurated on January 20, Trump began discussing his desires to “revive America’s imperial heyday,” according to writer J. Oliver Conroy. On social media and at post-election public appearances, he floated the idea of the US annexing both Canada and Greenland, continually calling the former as the US’s 51st state and referring to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as “Governor Trudeau.”
But what really is strength? Is it Trump asserting that he trusts Vladimir Putin to “keep his word” in a potential peace deal with Ukraine? That is the most publicly accessible semblance of strength when it comes to US foreign policy currently, but that is hard power. The United States has amassed a vast amount of soft power around the world, similar to broad cultural influence, throughout the past century. And other than our cultural exports, much of that comes from the often behind-the-scenes humanitarian work that the American government does throughout the world, much of which is organized by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). However, Trump began to cut these programs almost immediately after he was inaugurated, ending efforts such as fighting malaria in Myanmar or controlling HIV in the Dominican Republic. And our adversaries have been taking notice. China has been strategically monitoring where USAID programs are being cut, searching for gaps to drive their own soft-power wedge into. Trump has slashed USAID in the name of cutting government waste and fraud, but we may be ironically losing a pillar of our historically unchanged peace-through-strength approach as the effects of this purge become clearer.
Speeches and federal agency budget cuts are one thing, but the Trumpian idea of strength came into full effect on February 28, when Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy was invited to the Oval Office for a discussion regarding a deal that would give the US access to Ukrainian mineral deposits in exchange for continued military aid in its ongoing war with Russia. But what was supposed to be a friendly meeting between two allies quickly devolved into a shouting match, with Trump accusing Zelenskyy of “gambling with World War III” and Vice President JD Vance asking the Ukrainian leader if he had “said thank you once.” Shortly after the meeting, the official Instagram account of the White House (@whitehouse) posted a series of videos and photos from the event, including a clip of Vance going after Zelenskyy with the text “President Donald J. Trump and Vice President JD Vance put AMERICA FIRST” above it. Another post contained a clip of Zelenskyy leaving the White House after the meeting, with a quote from Trump reading “He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace.” The administration’s messaging on this represents the Trump foreign policy ethos, which is arguably the furthest that the concept of “peace through strength” has been stretched- Trump strives to exude strength in all of his interactions with other nations and governments. He puts himself in the position of strongman, dealmaker, forcing the hand of what he sees as weaker nations. This is nothing new for him, but the cracks seem to be reforming in the world’s view of how the US interacts with it in the second era of Trump.
Yes, America First is a catchy slogan, and one that many are on board with in one way or another, but what does it mean in the actual context of Trump’s complete 180 on almost a century of American foreign policy? When does America First become America Alone? The once-guaranteed American support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) may not be so anymore, and our European allies know this. Trump’s inauguration came with renewed calls from European leaders that the continent must not become complacent, that it must take its defense into its own hands now that Trump has repeatedly expressed disdain for aspects of the NATO alliance and those closest to him, such as Elon Musk, have suggested that the US leave it altogether.
When looking at all of these events and changes in American foreign policy, it is clear that there are really two distinct concepts of peace-through strength. There is that which the US pursued throughout the post-World War II era, through the Vietnam War, the Cold War, and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Then there is today, the new Trump philosophy of announcing a proposed revival of American imperialism, exchanging harsh jabs with allies in the Oval Office, and seeming to push the United States toward isolationism on the global stage, all while presenting as an enforcer carrying the banner of America First. Gone are the days of the United States partnering with our European allies to gather intelligence on the Soviet Union, or America’s role as an anchor of global liberal democracy. Trump is quickly trying to push those things out of fashion, day by day authoring a new foreign policy which is seeing the rest of the world grapple with how to arrange itself now that the United States is more insular, more isolated than ever before in modern times.
