Trump’s Foreign Policy: Examining the Nuances Beyond Traditional Hawks and Doves

Introduction

The recent U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025 have sparked renewed debate about how to categorize President Donald Trump’s foreign policy approach.

The actions—surgical strikes against nuclear facilities followed by immediate de-escalation—pleased neither traditional hawks nor doves, leaving observers puzzled about whether Trump represents a continuation of Republican interventionism or a new form of restraint.

The Jacksonian Framework

Trump’s foreign policy is best understood through the lens of Jacksonianism, one of four schools of American foreign policy thought identified by scholar Walter Russell Mead.

These four traditions include.

Wilsonianism emphasizes spreading liberal democratic values globally and views America as having a moral obligation to transform the world.

Hamiltonianism focuses on commercial interests and protecting international commerce, seeing the world as a marketplace for American business.

Jeffersonianism advocates avoiding foreign entanglements and concentrating on domestic democratic development.

Jacksonianism takes a profoundly nationalist approach, prioritizing domestic concerns while maintaining a willingness to use military force when American interests are directly threatened.

Jacksonians “focus inward, taking a profoundly nationalist approach, prioritizing domestic over foreign policy.

But they are also pleased to spend on the military and entirely willing to fight over issues they perceive to be central to U.S. interests.

As historian Hal Brands describes, “their aim in fighting is American victory, not the world's salvation”.

Historical Context and Characteristics

The Jacksonian tradition traces back to President Andrew Jackson, who pursued an assertive but limited foreign policy focused on American interests rather than global transformation.

Jackson’s approach involved forceful action when American honor or interests were threatened, but without the broader missionary zeal that characterizes Wilsonian interventionism.

Modern Jacksonian foreign policy exhibits several key characteristics

Unilateral nationalism

Jacksonians favor acting alone rather than through multilateral institutions

Limited but forceful intervention

They support military action when American interests are directly threatened, but oppose nation-building

Skepticism of alliances

International commitments are viewed as constraints on American sovereignty

Focus on American victory

Military action aims for decisive outcomes rather than broader world transformation

The Punitive Expedition Model

Trump’s Iran strikes exemplify what the article describes as a “modern kind of punitive expedition”.

Historically, punitive expeditions were “military journeys undertaken to punish a political entity or any group of people outside the borders of the punishing state”.

These operations were typically limited in scope and duration, designed to inflict punishment or compel behavior change rather than achieve broader political transformation.

Classic examples include

The 1916-1917 Mexican Punitive Expedition targeting Pancho Villa

Reagan’s 1988 Operation Praying Mantis against Iranian naval forces

Various 19th-century expeditions to “chastise” hostile forces

A punitive expedition “results in a measured, relatively swift, focused response.

It can be of some duration but only long enough to achieve the policy ends of punishing the group that threatened US interests or caused US casualties.

There is no regime change, no re-ordering of the existing power structure in a region”.

Rejection of the “Pottery Barn Rule”

Trump’s approach fundamentally rejects what many in Washington have called the “Pottery Barn rule”—the idea that “if you break it, you buy it”.

This rule, articulated by former Secretary of State Colin Powell, suggests that when the U.S. starts a war, it must be prepared to rebuild and stabilize afterward, regardless of cost.

Jacksonians “would instead reject the premise of the rule entirely, arguing that it’s fine to break things and leave”.

This represents a sharp departure from decades of U.S. foreign policy practice that has emphasized post-conflict reconstruction and nation-building.

Limitations and Risks

While the Jacksonian approach offers an alternative to both isolationism and liberal interventionism, it carries significant risks:

Temporary Solutions

Surgical strikes “rarely solve the underlying issue in any international dispute”. The damage to Iran’s nuclear program may be less severe than claimed, potentially requiring repeated interventions.

Escalation Risks

Success depends heavily on adversary reactions. If Iran had been able to respond with overwhelming force, or if the strikes had accidentally triggered regime change, the consequences could have been catastrophic.

Overconfidence Problems

Military success can breed demands for more intervention. As the article notes, “victory can breed overconfidence” and make “future poor decisions more likely”.

Trump’s Distinctive Approach

What makes Trump’s foreign policy distinctive is not just its Jacksonian characteristics, but how it combines nationalism with a willingness to use force selectively.

Unlike traditional isolationists, Trump maintains massive military spending and shows no reluctance to use force when he perceives direct threats to American interests.

Trump’s “America First” approach represents what some scholars call a combination of Jacksonian and Jeffersonian elements—nationalist in orientation but selective in engagement.

This stands in contrast to the Wilsonian-Hamiltonian consensus that has dominated U.S. foreign policy since World War II.

Conclusion

Historical Precedent and Future Implications

In evaluating Donald Trump's foreign policy, it is imperative to move beyond the oversimplified dichotomy of hawkish and dovish strategies. His approach reflects a complex and often contradictory landscape that transcends conventional categorizations.

Central to Trump’s foreign relations strategy was the “America First” doctrine, which significantly reoriented U.S. engagement in the international arena. This policy framework prioritized national interests and economic welfare, frequently at the expense of established alliances and international norms.

The Trump administration's withdrawal from pivotal agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran Nuclear Deal exemplified its inclination to dismantle longstanding diplomatic frameworks in favor of a unilateralist approach. These actions were largely motivated by Trump's assertion that such accords undermined U.S. economic security and labor, positioning his foreign policy within a protectionist paradigm.

Moreover, Trump's tenure exhibited a surprising willingness to engage with authoritarian regimes, showcased by his often-favorable interactions with leaders such as Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin. This dynamic undermined traditional diplomatic expectations, potentially destabilizing relationships with democratic allies and complicating the geopolitical narrative.

Trump’s engagement style frequently deviated from established diplomatic protocols, introducing a level of unpredictability to his interactions. While the administration did not shy away from military confrontations—evidenced by escalating tensions in the Middle East and the drone strike on Iranian General Qassem Soleimani—these actions were often justified through populist rhetoric aimed at solidifying support among his base. This suggested a readiness to employ military force decisively, aligning with hawkish tendencies but framed within a distinctly American populist context.

On the economic front, Trump's rigorous trade policies, particularly towards China, reflect a hawkish impulse to safeguard American manufacturing and rectify trade imbalances. However, the realities of global interdependence further complicated these efforts, underscoring the challenges inherent in balancing punitive measures with the necessity for international cooperation.

In summary, Trump's foreign policy cannot be easily classified as exclusively hawkish or dovish; it amalgamates elements from both spectrums while charting a distinctive course that often defies conventional diplomatic wisdom. By emphasizing national sovereignty and direct negotiation, he altered the parameters for measuring success in international relations, leaving an indelible mark on the global order.

If Trump’s policy signifies a revival of Jacksonian principles, it signals a departure from the nearly unchallenged Wilsonianism that framed U.S. identity as the “indispensable nation.” This transformation necessitates adjustments from both allies and adversaries, as the new America operates with a more selective and narrowly defined vision of its interests.

The airstrike on Iran exemplified that Trump's approach can yield tactical success without escalating into broader conflicts. However, as noted, his Jacksonian strategy allowed him to navigate between the extremes of unrestrained intervention and absolute restraint—a formula that may not consistently yield successful outcomes.

Ultimately, Trump's foreign policy embodies a modern iteration of a limited but assertive interventionist approach, consistent with a uniquely American tradition of punitive expeditions adapted to contemporary geopolitical contexts.