The sky isn’t falling: Trump’s foreign policy won’t be a catastrophe

Many observers are ringing the alarm bells about Donald Trump’s reelection, fearing a retreat from America’s role in the world. Critics insist that his approach to foreign policy will dismantle the rules-based international order that the U.S. has long championed.

But although Trump’s approach is far from traditional, it is neither reckless nor isolationist. Instead, it represents a strategy of restraint aimed at addressing core threats without entangling America in endless global commitments.

To understand Trump’s likely grand strategy, set aside the assumption that America’s primary role is to uphold a global order shaped entirely by its own ideals. Trump isn’t likely to pursue that vision. Instead, he’s preparing to face a world where rival powers like China, Russia and Iran are asserting their own interests. His approach is not about defending a bygone era of American-led global hegemony but about selectively engaging where it truly matters to our interests.

This kind of realism, known as “restraint” in international relations, is a far cry from the image of an America that polices the world or attempts to reshape other societies. Restraint involves a focused, cost-conscious strategy, avoiding the overreach and entanglements that have marked American foreign policy in recent decades.

Restraint means limiting America’s role to selective blunting where it directly impacts our interests. At the same time, this approach doesn’t signal a willingness to accommodate adversaries, and Trump’s instincts would almost certainly rule out appeasement through extensive concessions.

Critics quickly brand any noninterventionist foreign policy as isolationist, fearing the U.S. will abandon its allies and retreat behind its borders. But restraint is not isolationism. It doesn’t imply America disengaging from the world, but rather intervening only where America’s core security interests are directly at stake. This means focusing on regions of primary importance — such as Asia and Europe — and avoiding open-ended commitments in secondary theaters.

Trump’s restraint strategy recognizes that America cannot be everywhere at once, nor should it attempt to be. The goal here isn’t to shrink from responsibility but to channel America’s power where it counts most. While traditional allies might see a shift toward a more transactional approach, this doesn’t mean abandonment. Selective engagement is not a shirking of duty; it’s a means of tailoring America’s commitments to align with today’s realities rather than yesterday’s ideals.

Trump’s foreign policy will likely be focused on blunting the influence of revisionist powers without transforming the world order. China, Russia and Iran are eager to reshape international dynamics in their favor, and Trump’s strategy will push back — but only insofar as it is necessary for America’s core interests. In many ways, this approach mirrors the Cold War principle of containment, albeit without the ideological crusade. And, crucially, it avoids the rigidity of “containment 2.0,” which would demand broad commitments to oppose these powers on all fronts.

Take China. Trump is unlikely to pursue the kind of direct confrontation some hawks advocate. Instead, his administration will aim to blunt Beijing’s aggressive maneuvers in the Pacific, such as its militarization of the South China Sea. Rather than trying to convert the Indo-Pacific into a bastion of American ideals, Trump’s restraint strategy will focus on maintaining a balance of power, ensuring that U.S. allies like Japan and Australia can hold their own. This approach acknowledges the reality of China’s rise without committing America to a costly and prolonged campaign to reshape the region.

Russia is another case in point. Trump’s relationship with Moscow is often seen through a lens of controversy, but a restrained approach here is not an endorsement of Russian behavior, it’s a recognition that the U.S. can push back against Russian influence in Europe through strategic support for allies without overcommitting itself to direct confrontation. The U.S. doesn’t need to be on the frontlines of every Eastern European dispute; a carefully calibrated support for NATO allies and targeted deterrence measures are more than sufficient.

Then there’s Iran. Critics may argue that a restrained approach gives Tehran a free pass, but that’s a distortion. Trump’s restraint doesn’t mean he’ll ignore Iran’s destabilizing actions in the Middle East. Instead, his policy will likely aim to prevent Iran from extending its reach while avoiding the quagmire of a new Middle Eastern war.

By supporting partners like Israel and Saudi Arabia and targeting specific threats, America can counter Iranian influence without becoming embroiled in endless conflicts. Restraint here involves blunting Iranian ambitions where necessary, without any illusions that concessions or overtures will alter the character of the Iranian regime.

While some may yearn for the U.S. to uphold the rules-based international order at any cost, this approach is increasingly out of step with global realities. The world has changed, and American hegemony is no longer the given it once was. Instead of insisting on maintaining every facet of a system that no longer fits, Trump’s strategy recognizes the need to adapt.

Restraint doesn’t mean abandoning the world to chaos, it means acknowledging that America’s resources are finite, and that they must be deployed judiciously to preserve core interests.

This realism should comfort, not alarm, those who worry about an unstable world. A restrained grand strategy makes America adaptable, prepared to face a multipolar environment where different powers have different interests. It accepts that other nations will pursue their own agendas, while ensuring that America’s security and influence remain intact where it truly matters.

A Trump grand strategy does not spell disaster. America’s engagement with the world won’t disappear. Yes, Trump’s approach breaks with the tradition of liberal internationalism, but that isn’t the same as recklessness. Restraint is a practical, sustainable alternative to the high-cost interventions of recent decades. It’s a policy aimed at stability, not global transformation — and that’s a good thing.

Let’s not ignore the caveats. I don’t agree with everything that Trump is likely to do on the world stage, but I reject the argument that his election will cause the sky to fall. The restrained approach to grand strategy isn’t about a blanket endorsement of Trump’s every move. It is about recognizing the merits of a foreign policy that prioritizes national interests without overstretching.

As we brace for the next four years, let’s not panic. Let’s assess the strategy on its own terms, not through the lens of the past. Restraint offers America a pragmatic way to maintain its strength and influence without succumbing to endless entanglements. And in today’s complex world, that may be precisely the course the U.S. needs.

Andrew Latham is a professor of international relations at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minn., a senior fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy, and a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities in Washington, D.C.