Ellie Trumpfheller
The Illusion of Isolationism
In today's globalized society, American isolationism is not a shield— it is a blindfold. This fundamental misreading of global dynamics creates power vacuums that competing nations, particularly Russia and China, move to fill with governance frameworks aligned with their authoritarian values and national interests. A shift in global leadership carries significant implications: diminished U.S. economic opportunities, reduced national security, and a potential decline in American global influence. The pursuit of isolationist policies, while intended to protect American interests, often produces effects that work against America's position in the international order.
Retreating from global engagement imposes remarkable and immediate costs. Economically, it is a path to stagnation. Global technology competition presents a modern necessity for deep economic integration, especially as the U.S. aims to maintain a strategic edge in critical tech. Disengagement from global markets (as a result of increased tariffs) would trigger price increases across the board, reduce economic efficiency, and jeopardize the stability of global shipping lanes crucial for trade. Simultaneously, withdrawal would limit U.S. access to international talent and markets, slowing innovation, curbing economic growth, and reducing the number of high-paying jobs in the labor market. In one model, President Trump’s plan to impose a 25 percent tariff on Canada and Mexico alongside a 10 percent tariff on China is expected to shrink U.S. economic output by nearly half a percent in the next 10 years. The effects of isolationist policies are both short and long-term, imposing heavy burdens on future generations of Americans by curtailing economic opportunity.
China, closely followed by Russia, is actively working to reshape the global order in its image. Beijing's aggressive expansionism in the South China Sea through the creation of artificial islands, territorial disputes with neighbors, and disregard for international maritime law demonstrates its ambition to assert dominance in the Indo-Pacific region, countering U.S. influence. Similarly, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, accompanied by widespread atrocities and disregard for sovereignty, exemplifies its broader goal of undermining democratic nations and challenging the norms of the rules-based international order. These are just a few instances that reveal adversarial efforts to destabilize the global order and replace it with a model where power, rather than rules, dictates international relations. As aspiring hegemons, both nations are acutely aware of the impact of eroding U.S. influence while simultaneously fortifying their own spheres of influence. Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin put it plainly: the U.S. must choose between "an open, secure, and prosperous world of rules and rights" or "the violent and lawless world of aggression and chaos that Putin seeks." The stakes are clear—failure to defend the existing order will not only embolden authoritarian regimes but also threaten global stability, economic security, and the principles of freedom and sovereignty on which democracies rely.
The pivot toward isolationism in Washington and throughout the country is born out of disillusionment, economic anxiety, and shifting generational perspectives. Pew Research data shows that more than any other age group, young Americans ages 18-34 advocate most strongly for reducing U.S. international engagement. This sentiment reflects a generational experience of U.S. foreign policy setbacks. The formative experiences of young Americans—endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the modern crises in Ukraine and Gaza, and inconsistent U.S. foreign policy decision-making—have bred skepticism toward international engagement. Conclusively, many perceive internationalism as a wasteful use of tax dollars abroad that could better serve pressing needs at home.
Strategic Partnerships: Doing More With Less
Instead of framing global engagement as mere overextension, it should be understood through the strategic benefits of multilateralism. Sustained global engagement reduces the burden on U.S. resources while enhancing national security. In his first administration, President Donald Trump provided a clear demonstration of the consequences of undermining this principle when he unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from a series of critical multilateral organizations and agreements–including the Paris Climate Accord, UN Human Rights Council, Iran nuclear deal, UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the World Health Organization (WHO).
The consequences of these decisions were severe. The WHO withdrawal significantly impeded America's ability to effectively monitor and respond to the global COVID-19 pandemic, forcing the creation of redundant disease surveillance systems without access to WHO data and resources. Reneging on the Iran nuclear deal required the U.S. to increase intelligence gathering for monitoring Iran’s Nuclear Program and spend more on sanctions enforcement. In leaving the Paris Climate Accord, the U.S. relinquished its chance to shape the rapidly evolving clean energy marketplace, forfeiting significant opportunities for American companies to lead in green technology. This self-inflicted handicap threatens to relegate the U.S. to the sidelines as other nations seize the mantle of global climate leadership, along with the associated economic benefits.
In each case, the collective action these plans sought to achieve was undermined by U.S. withdrawal. This is not merely a dated reality–since President Trump re-entered the Oval Office, many of these withdrawals were reinstated. Reflecting on their short-term effects reveals that these plans not only curtailed international potential to further peace and security but also significantly eroded America's own global standing and influence in domains vital to its national interests. Framing global engagement as burdensome overreach ignores the clear security and resource benefits that strategic multilateralism provides.
Recent polling shows that most Americans continue to believe a strong U.S. military presence promotes safety around the world. These defensive commitments do not intend to position the U.S. in opposition to the rest of the world, assert dominance, or otherwise provoke conflict. Rather, the U.S. builds strategic partnerships aiming to share security responsibilities while advancing its interests. By working alongside allies, the U.S. amplifies its influence, distributes security burdens, and mitigates risks—ensuring that global threats are addressed proactively rather than reactively.
Consider the Combined Maritime Forces, where the U.S. leads 46 nations in naval operations to create a robust deterrence network. Similar models exist worldwide, from the United Nations Command in Korea to NATO's Command Structure. Each organization operates on a common principle: the U.S. multiplies its effectiveness while distributing the costs and risks with allies. Through partnerships, the U.S. can do more with less, reducing the likelihood of conflict, protecting vital trade routes, and ensuring that America's voice remains influential in global affairs. Retreating from these engagements runs the risk of creating vulnerabilities that threaten American security.
Yesterday’s Lessons
History offers a warning: when the U.S. withdrew from global affairs in the 1930s, it emboldened Hitler's Nazi Germany to launch a devastating war of conquest across Europe. Today, the dangers of retreat are no less profound. Unchecked authoritarians in Russia, North Korea, Iran, and beyond seem to be testing the boundaries of their aggression, probing for weakness. An America that withdraws from global affairs does not find peace—it finds itself reacting to crises from a position of diminished strength, without the alliances and forward-deployed assets that serve as its first line of defense. The costs of this short-sightedness would be measured in American lives and the unraveling of a global order that has, for all its flaws, delivered unprecedented–if imperfect–periods of peace and prosperity.
For a power as great as the U.S., the desire to disengage oversimplifies the relationship between the domestic and the global. If isolationism prevails, it has the potential to allow for a world order led by Beijing and Moscow. This new order will not only potentially destabilize U.S. allies in Asia and Europe but also erode the foundations of American success and security.
The divergent paths for American global engagement present stark implications. Behind the straw armor of isolationism lies a diminished America, its influence waning as threats multiply unchecked. The alternative—leadership in defending freedom, human rights, and the rule of law—demands more but preserves American power and values. The global system continues its evolution regardless of American participation, and this reality binds American security, prosperity, and values inextricably to international engagement. Isolationism thus emerges not merely as a short-sighted policy, but as a fundamental misunderstanding of what has historically secured American greatness.
Comentarios