Washington’s New Realist Consensus: A Bipartisan Shift Toward Foreign Policy Restraint

Executive Summary

In recent years, a significant transformation has taken place in Washington regarding the approach to foreign policy, characterized by a newfound realist consensus that transcends party lines.

This shift signifies a growing recognition among Democrats and Republicans of the limitations of interventionist strategies and a collective call for more measured and prudent international engagement.

Amidst a complex global landscape marked by rising geopolitical tensions and resource constraints, policymakers increasingly advocate for a foreign policy that prioritizes national interests and strategic restraint.

This emerging consensus reflects a shared understanding that military interventions and expansive commitments abroad often yield unintended consequences, leading to prolonged conflicts and significant costs.

Key figures from both parties are now emphasizing the importance of diplomacy, economic engagement, and multilateral cooperation over military solutions.

This evolving mindset encourages a reassessment of longstanding foreign commitments and a cautious approach to new interventions, aiming to safeguard American interests while fostering stable international relations without overextending resources.

This bipartisan shift not only marks a departure from the interventionist tendencies of earlier decades but also sets the stage for a more sustainable foreign policy framework that aligns with contemporary realities.

The call for restraint has resonated with a broader audience, reflecting a growing desire for policies prioritizing sustainability, pragmatism, and a focus on domestic challenges alongside international responsibilities.

As this realist consensus takes shape, it could significantly influence how the United States engages with the world in the coming years.

introduction

A significant transformation in Washington’s foreign policy establishment is underway that transcends traditional partisan divides.

While both political parties publicly maintain their rhetorical differences, a deeper convergence around foreign policy realism and restraint is emerging among younger strategists and policymakers across the political spectrum.

The Collapse of the Post-Cold War Consensus

The traditional U.S. foreign policy framework—often called “America-as-globocop”—that dominated the post-World War II and post-Cold War eras has largely collapsed.

This consensus, built around American global primacy and liberal internationalism, has been undermined by a series of strategic failures, including the Iraq War, the economic disruptions from trade policies with China, and the costly military interventions that followed 9/11.

Both Democrats and Republicans now acknowledge that the United States can no longer serve as the dominant military power simultaneously in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.

This recognition has created space for what experts call an emerging “restraint consensus”—though it has not yet crystallized into a unified grand strategy comparable to Cold War containment.

Key Areas of Bipartisan Agreement

China as the Primary Strategic Challenge

Perhaps the strongest area of bipartisan consensus centers on China as America’s most consequential strategic competitor.

Both parties view China as the sole nation with the ambition, resources, and military capabilities to challenge U.S. superpower status.

However, significant differences remain regarding the appropriate response.

The Trump administration appears to be adopting a more restrained military approach toward China than its predecessor, focusing primarily on trade rather than military confrontation.

This represents a departure from Biden’s more hawkish policies, including his occasional abandonment of “strategic ambiguity” regarding Taiwan.

The Imperative of Prioritization

There is a shared recognition that America must prioritize its global commitments rather than maintain unlimited ambitions with limited capabilities.

This has led to broad agreement on the need for “restraint”—a dramatic scaling back of U.S. global ambition and renewed focus on domestic interests in what both sides acknowledge is now a multipolar world.

Burden Sharing with Allies

Both parties increasingly demand that allies, particularly in Europe and Asia, assume greater responsibility for their defense.

This reflects a bipartisan frustration with what many perceive as “free-riding” by U.S. partners who have benefited from American security guarantees without proportional contributions.

The New Generation of Realist Thinkers

The emerging consensus is being driven by a younger generation of policymakers and strategists who came of age dealing with the strategic debacles of the 2000s and 2010s rather than the Cold War triumph that preceded them.

Republican Realists

Key figures include Elbridge Colby, now Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, who advocates for concentrating U.S. military resources on the Asia-Pacific even if it means reducing commitments in Europe and the Middle East.

Colby represents what experts call the “prioritizing” camp within Republican foreign policy circles, emphasizing that the U.S. must balance limited capabilities with strategic objectives.

George Beebe, Director of Grand Strategy at the Quincy Institute and former CIA Russia analyst, exemplifies the realist approach that warns against picking “two-front fights with great powers in a multipolar world”.

Beebe argues for more pragmatic relationships with adversaries to avoid driving Russia and China into closer cooperation against the United States.

Democratic Restrainers

On the Democratic side, Mira Rapp-Hooper, a former senior Biden administration staffer, explicitly rejects the idea that Republicans should monopolize foreign policy realism.

She and other Democratic strategists like Rebecca Lissner are developing a “progressive realist” approach that acknowledges America’s continued outsized role while advocating for more selective engagement.

Stephen Wertheim of the Carnegie Endowment represents the intellectual foundation of the Democratic restraint movement, arguing for significant U.S. retrenchment from Europe and the Middle East while maintaining commitments in Asia.

Matthew Duss, a foreign policy advisor to Senator Bernie Sanders, bridges progressive politics with restraint principles, supporting Ukrainian resistance while advocating for reduced global U.S. military involvement.

Persistent Differences and Limitations

Regional Priorities

The most significant divide concerns which regions should be deprioritized.

Republican restrainers like Colby are more willing to reduce commitments in Europe and the Middle East to focus on China.

Democratic restrainers generally support maintaining robust European engagement, particularly given Russia’s war in Ukraine, while being more skeptical of military confrontation with China.

Values vs. Interests

Democrats remain more committed to values-based foreign policy, including human rights promotion and humanitarian intervention.

Republicans in the restraint camp are more willing to adopt purely interest-based approaches that set aside moral considerations in favor of strategic calculations.

Alliance Management

While both sides support burden-sharing, they differ on implementation.

Democrats favor strengthening existing multilateral institutions and cooperative frameworks.

Republicans are more willing to use coercive diplomacy and threats of abandonment to compel allied contributions.

Institutional and Political Obstacles

Generational Change

The biggest obstacle to implementing restraint policies may be displacing older foreign policy establishment figures who have never been held accountable for major strategic failures.

As one expert noted, “Did we actually hold people responsible for the Iraq War? Did we hold people responsible for the financial crisis? We did not. Those people got off scot-free”.

Congressional Dynamics

Bipartisan support for restraint varies significantly by issue area.

While there is growing consensus on reducing Middle Eastern commitments and demanding greater burden-sharing from European allies, Congress remains more hawkish on issues like support for Ukraine and deterring China.

Public Opinion

Contrary to conventional wisdom, realist policies may be more popular with the American public than with foreign policy elites.

Some research suggests that while establishment figures cling to liberal internationalist ideas, ordinary Americans are more receptive to restraint-based approaches that prioritize domestic concerns.

Conclusion

Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy

A “Lopsided Multipolarity”

The emerging consensus envisions a world of “lopsided multipolarity” where the United States remains the most powerful country but cannot maintain hegemonic dominance.

This requires more selective engagement and greater reliance on regional allies to manage local challenges.

Gradual Implementation

Rather than dramatic policy reversals, the shift toward restraint is likely to be gradual and issue-specific. As George Beebe notes, “To some degree, that’s why you’re seeing different tacks from Trump on different issues. Part of it is Trump himself, but part of it is that there’s tensions within the party being played out”.

Continued Debate

What’s emerging is not yet a new consensus comparable to Cold War containment. Instead, it represents a broad agreement on the limitations of the previous approach combined with ongoing debates about alternatives.

As one expert observes, “An American foreign policy grounded in realism and restraint is still far from being the dominant position in either political party”.

The Washington realist consensus reflects a fundamental recognition that American foreign policy must adapt to a changed world where the United States can no longer afford unlimited global commitments.

While significant differences remain between and within both parties, the shared acknowledgment of strategic overstretch and the need for prioritization suggests that some form of restraint-based approach will likely characterize U.S. foreign policy in the coming decades, regardless of which party controls the White House.