Trump’s Redefined Values-Based Foreign Policy: From Liberal Internationalism to American Nationalism

Introduction

The assertion that America still maintains a “values-based” foreign policy under Donald Trump’s second administration represents a fundamental reframing of what constitutes values in international relations.

FAF analyzes below that rather than abandoning ideological considerations; the Trump administration has articulated an alternative values framework that prioritizes national sovereignty, traditional conservative principles, and a particular interpretation of democratic governance that directly challenges the liberal internationalist consensus that has dominated American foreign policy since the Cold War.

This ideological shift, prominently articulated by Vice President JD Vance at the 2025 Munich Security Conference, represents a tactical adjustment and a comprehensive reimagining of America’s role in promoting authentic democratic values globally.

The Historical Context of American Values-Based Foreign Policy

American foreign policy has long incorporated moral and ideological dimensions, with the explicit promotion of democratic values becoming particularly prominent in the post-Cold War era.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 ushered in what scholars term the “liberal hegemony” period, during which the United States positioned itself as the global champion of democracy, human rights, and free market capitalism.

This approach reflected a belief that American prosperity and security were inherently linked to the spread of democratic governance worldwide, a perspective that informed policy decisions from NATO expansion to democracy promotion initiatives in Eastern Europe and beyond.

The Clinton administration’s democracy promotion efforts in Central and Eastern Europe exemplified this values-driven approach, contributing over $9.5 billion in direct government assistance by 2020 to support democratic transitions.

This policy framework operated on the assumption that democratic nations were inherently more peaceful, stable, and aligned with American interests.

The Obama administration continued this tradition while adopting a “leading from behind” strategy to promote liberal democratic values through multilateral institutions and local capacity building rather than direct military intervention.

Throughout these decades, American policymakers consistently argued that values and interests were not competing priorities but mutually reinforcing elements of a coherent grand strategy.

However, this liberal internationalist consensus faced significant challenges in the early 21st century.

The prolonged conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the 2008 financial crisis, and growing public skepticism about globalization created space for alternative approaches to foreign policy.

The rise of nationalist movements across the developed world, including within the United States, reflected broader dissatisfaction with the perceived costs and limitations of values-based interventionism.

These developments set the stage for Trump’s initial challenge to the post-Cold War foreign policy establishment and his subsequent articulation of an “America First” alternative.

Trump’s Ideological Framework: Sovereignty and Traditional Values

The Trump administration’s approach to values-based foreign policy fundamentally rejects the universalist assumptions underpinning post-Cold War American diplomacy.

Instead of promoting a liberal internationalist vision of human rights and democratic governance, Trump officials have emphasized national sovereignty, traditional cultural values, and what they characterize as authentic democratic representation against elite manipulation.

This framework positions the United States not as the leader of a global liberal order but as the defender of national self-determination and popular sovereignty against what administration officials view as technocratic overreach.

The America First Policy Institute’s Center for American Values provides insight into this ideological orientation, emphasizing protecting life, religious liberty, and parental rights as core policy priorities.

These domestic values priorities directly inform the administration’s international perspective, creating a framework that views global governance institutions and multinational agreements as potential threats to democratic self-determination rather than mechanisms for promoting shared values.

This represents a fundamental departure from the assumption that American values are universal values that should be promoted through international cooperation and institution-building.

Trump’s foreign policy reflects what scholars describe as a “realist” approach that prioritizes material interests over ideological considerations. Yet, this characterization misses the deeply ideological nature of the administration’s critique of existing international arrangements.

The administration’s opposition to multilateralism, skepticism of international law, and preference for bilateral relationships all flow from a particular understanding of sovereignty and democratic legitimacy that directly challenges liberal internationalist assumptions.

This is not simply pragmatic adjustment but ideological competition over the meaning of democratic governance itself.

The administration’s approach to international cooperation reflects this values framework. Officials argue that global institutions often serve elite interests rather than popular will.

From this perspective, withdrawing from international agreements and reducing foreign aid does not represent an abandonment of values but a defense of authentic democratic governance against technocratic manipulation.

This ideological foundation helps explain policy decisions that might appear purely transactional or driven by narrow material interests.

The Munich Moment

Vance’s Challenge to European Democracy

Vice President JD Vance’s February 2025 speech at the Munich Security Conference provided the most comprehensive articulation of the Trump administration’s alternative values framework, directly challenging European leaders' commitment to democratic principles.

Vance accused European governments of using “ugly, Soviet-era words like misinformation and disinformation” to suppress political dissent and protect “old, entrenched interests” against democratic accountability.

This critique extended beyond specific policy disagreements to fundamental questions about the nature of democratic governance and the role of popular sovereignty in political decision-making.

The speech specifically targeted European policies on free speech, citing examples from the United Kingdom, Sweden, Germany, and Scotland, where governments had taken legal action against individuals for religious expression, political speech, or protest activities.

Vance framed these actions as evidence of democratic backsliding, arguing that European leaders were abandoning their commitment to fundamental democratic values in favor of technocratic control.

His criticism of the Munich Security Conference for excluding populist political leaders highlighted the administration’s view that established international forums serve elite rather than popular interests.

European reactions to Vance’s speech revealed the depth of the transatlantic values divide.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and other European leaders rejected what they characterized as American interference in European democratic processes while defending their approach to regulating hate speech and disinformation.

This exchange reflected competing interpretations of democratic governance, with Europeans emphasizing institutional protections for democratic stability and Americans emphasizing popular sovereignty and individual rights.

The conflict illustrated how values-based disagreements had moved beyond policy differences to fundamental questions about democratic legitimacy.

The Munich speech also addressed the ongoing war in Ukraine, with Vance questioning European rhetoric about defending democracy while criticizing their domestic democratic practices.

This linkage between foreign policy commitments and domestic governance reflected the administration’s argument that authentic values-based foreign policy must begin with genuine democratic accountability at home.

The speech thus positioned the United States as the defender of authentic democratic values against European technocratic elitism, inverting traditional post-Cold War assumptions about American leadership in promoting liberal democracy.

Departure from Post-Cold War Liberal Internationalism

Trump’s second-term foreign policy represents a fundamental break with the liberal internationalist framework that has guided American foreign policy since 1945, particularly in the post-Cold War era.

The administration’s approach to international institutions, alliance relationships, and global governance reflects what analysts describe as a “second American revolution” that rejects multilateral constraints on American power while maintaining global engagement on American terms.

This shift extends beyond tactical adjustments to comprehensively reimagining America’s role in international affairs.

The administration’s withdrawal from international agreements, including the Paris Climate Accord and the World Health Organization, reflects this broader ideological orientation.

Rather than viewing these institutions as mechanisms for advancing shared values and addressing global challenges, Trump officials characterize them as constraints on American sovereignty that serve foreign rather than American interests.

This perspective aligns with the administration’s broader critique of the “rules-based international order” as a system designed to limit American power rather than promote genuine international cooperation.

The administration’s approach to NATO and European allies illustrates this transformation in practice.

While maintaining formal alliance commitments, Trump officials have consistently criticized European defense spending, questioned the value of mutual security guarantees, and demanded greater European contributions to shared defense responsibilities.

This transactional approach to alliance relationships reflects the administration’s view that international cooperation should serve clear American interests rather than abstract commitments to collective security or shared values.

Trade policy provides another lens for understanding this departure from liberal internationalism.

The administration’s initiation of trade wars with allies and adversaries reflects a zero-sum view of international economics that directly challenges post-Cold War assumptions about the benefits of economic interdependence.

From the Trump administration’s perspective, trade relationships should advance American economic interests rather than promote global integration or shared prosperity.

This approach treats economic policy as an extension of national power rather than a mechanism for building international cooperation.

Implications for Global Democratic Governance

The Trump administration’s redefined approach to values-based foreign policy has significant implications for global democratic governance and the future of international cooperation.

By challenging the universalist assumptions underpinning post-Cold War American foreign policy, the administration has opened space for alternative governance and international relations models prioritizing national sovereignty over global integration.

This shift coincides with broader challenges to liberal democracy worldwide, including the rise of authoritarian populism and growing skepticism about international institutions.

The administration’s emphasis on bilateral rather than multilateral relationships reflects a broader trend toward fragmentation of the international system.

Rather than working through established international institutions, Trump officials prefer direct negotiations, which allow for a more explicit linkage between American concessions and foreign compliance with American preferences.

This approach potentially undermines the institutional foundations of international cooperation while creating opportunities for more flexible and responsive diplomatic arrangements.

The values conflict with European allies illustrated by Vance’s Munich speech suggests deeper challenges for transatlantic cooperation beyond specific policy disagreements. European leaders have characterized Trump’s approach as fundamentally incompatible with their understanding of democratic governance and international law.

This ideological divergence extends beyond temporary political differences to encompass fundamental questions about the nature of democratic legitimacy and the role of international institutions in protecting democratic values.

The administration’s approach to conflict resolution, particularly regarding Ukraine, reflects these broader ideological commitments.

Trump officials have proposed direct negotiations with Russia that would bypass European allies and potentially accept territorial concessions in exchange for conflict termination.

This approach prioritizes immediate conflict resolution over longer-term commitments to territorial integrity and democratic sovereignty, reflecting the administration’s skepticism about values-based foreign policy commitments that constrain American flexibility.

Conclusion

The Trump administration’s approach to foreign policy does not abandon values-based considerations but fundamentally redefines them around principles of national sovereignty, popular democracy, and traditional cultural values.

This ideological framework directly challenges the liberal internationalist consensus that has guided American foreign policy since the Cold War, offering an alternative vision of democratic governance that prioritizes national self-determination over global integration.

While critics characterize this approach as purely transactional or driven by narrow material interests, the administration’s consistent emphasis on sovereignty, authentic democratic representation, and resistance to technocratic governance reveals a coherent ideological foundation that competes directly with liberal internationalism for influence over American foreign policy.

The implications of this shift extend far beyond temporary policy adjustments to encompass fundamental questions about the future of international cooperation and democratic governance.

The administration’s challenge to European allies over competing interpretations of democratic values illustrates how ideological differences have moved beyond policy disagreements to encompass basic questions about political legitimacy and international law.

As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, Trump’s “second American revolution” in foreign policy represents a decisive break with the institutional framework that has guided international relations for nearly eight decades, with consequences that will likely extend well beyond his administration.