Introduction: A Referendum on America’s Place in the World
As the United States navigates a turbulent political landscape, the prospect of a second presidency for Donald J. Trump has reignited a fundamental debate about the nation’s role on the global stage. Central to this debate is a question that defined his first term and promises to shape his potential second: When a U.S. president decides to unilaterally withdraw from long-standing international agreements, does the American public follow? This is not merely an academic inquiry; it is a question that strikes at the heart of American foreign policy, national identity, and the stability of the post-war global order.
During his four years in office, President Trump made headlines by systematically dismantling or withdrawing from a series of landmark international pacts. From the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal to the Paris Agreement on climate change and the Iran nuclear deal, his administration pursued an “America First” agenda that viewed multilateral commitments with deep suspicion, framing them as detrimental to American sovereignty and economic interests. This approach marked a stark departure from the decades-long bipartisan consensus that had positioned the United States as the principal architect and guarantor of a rules-based international system.
Now, with the possibility of his return to the White House, allies and adversaries alike are bracing for a potential acceleration of this trend. The core issue transcends the personality of a single leader; it probes the shifting tectonic plates of American public opinion. Is the skepticism towards globalism that propelled Trump to power in 2016 a transient political phenomenon, or does it represent a durable sea change in how a significant portion of the electorate views their country’s relationship with the world? Understanding this dynamic is crucial for predicting not only the future of American diplomacy but also the very structure of international cooperation in the 21st century.
This article delves into the “America First” doctrine, reviews the major withdrawals of the Trump presidency, analyzes the complex and often contradictory state of public opinion on global engagement, and explores the profound implications a continued policy of withdrawal could have for the United States and the world. It is a story of a nation grappling with its identity, caught between the traditions of international leadership and the powerful allure of a nationalist retreat.
The “America First” Doctrine: A Departure from Tradition
A Historical Context of American Internationalism
To fully grasp the disruptive nature of the “America First” platform, one must first understand the tradition it seeks to upend. Following the devastation of World War II, the United States spearheaded the creation of a liberal international order. Driven by the belief that collective security and economic interdependence would prevent a recurrence of global conflict, American leaders from both parties championed the establishment of institutions like the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. This era of American internationalism was predicated on the idea that U.S. interests were best served by leading a stable, prosperous, and democratic world.
This post-war consensus, while not without its critics and internal debates, remained the bedrock of U.S. foreign policy for over 70 years. It guided the nation through the Cold War, the fall of the Soviet Union, and the rise of globalization. The core assumption was that American leadership was indispensable, and that treaties, alliances, and multinational organizations were essential tools for projecting power, promoting values, and protecting national security. While presidents differed on tactics and priorities, the foundational commitment to this system was rarely questioned.
Defining “America First”: Transactionalism Over Treaties
Donald Trump’s “America First” slogan, resurrected from the isolationist movements of the pre-World War II era, represented a direct assault on this long-standing tradition. However, it is not a doctrine of pure isolationism. Rather, it is a philosophy of aggressive unilateralism and transactional diplomacy. In this worldview, the international system is not a community of nations with shared interests, but an arena of zero-sum competition where other countries have long been “ripping off” the United States.
Under this doctrine, multilateral agreements are viewed not as instruments of cooperation but as constraints on American sovereignty and economic freedom. Alliances like NATO are re-framed as protection rackets where allies are “delinquent” in their payments. Trade deals are judged solely on their immediate, measurable impact on the U.S. trade deficit, not on their strategic value in building economic blocs or setting global commercial rules. The “America First” approach prioritizes bilateral deals, where the economic and political might of the United States can be brought to bear most effectively against a single, often weaker, negotiating partner. It is a worldview that is deeply skeptical of global elites, dismissive of diplomatic norms, and fundamentally convinced that the United States has been shouldering an unfair burden for too long.
A Pattern of Withdrawal: Trump’s First Term in Review
The “America First” doctrine was not just rhetorical. It was swiftly translated into a concrete policy of withdrawal from agreements that the Trump administration deemed contrary to U.S. interests. Each withdrawal sent shockwaves through the international community and reinforced a pattern of American disengagement.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): The First Major Move
On his first full day in office, President Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The TPP was an ambitious trade agreement negotiated by the Obama administration among 12 Pacific Rim nations, explicitly designed to serve as a strategic counterweight to China’s growing economic influence in the region. It aimed to set high standards for labor, environmental protection, and intellectual property, effectively creating a trading bloc that would operate under rules largely written by the U.S.
Trump, however, had campaigned vociferously against the TPP, calling it a “disaster” that would ship American jobs overseas. His withdrawal was the fulfillment of a key campaign promise, celebrated by his base as a victory for the American worker. For critics, the move was a massive strategic blunder. It effectively ceded the economic leadership of the Asia-Pacific to Beijing and left a vacuum that China was all too willing to fill. The remaining 11 nations, led by Japan, eventually salvaged the deal, renaming it the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), but the absence of the world’s largest economy significantly blunted its intended geopolitical impact.
The Paris Agreement on Climate Change: A Global Rebuke
Perhaps no withdrawal was more symbolic of the Trump administration’s rejection of global consensus than its exit from the Paris Agreement. Adopted in 2015 by nearly every nation on Earth, the accord represented a landmark global effort to combat climate change. While its commitments were non-binding, it created a framework for countries to set their own emissions reduction targets and work collectively toward a common goal.
In June 2017, President Trump announced his intention to withdraw, arguing that the agreement imposed “draconian financial and economic burdens” on the United States while giving a pass to major polluters like China. He framed the decision as a defense of American industry and economic sovereignty. The move was met with widespread international condemnation, isolating the United States alongside Syria and Nicaragua as the only non-participants at the time. Domestically, the action was polarizing. While it pleased his base and a fossil fuel industry eager for deregulation, it also sparked a powerful counter-movement, with hundreds of U.S. cities, states, and corporations pledging to uphold the Paris goals independently. President Joe Biden would later rejoin the agreement on his first day in office, highlighting the whiplash effect of U.S. policy.
The Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA): Unraveling a Diplomatic Triumph
The 2018 withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran nuclear deal, represented a direct break with key European allies. The agreement, negotiated by the Obama administration alongside the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China, had placed strict, verifiable limits on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of crippling economic sanctions.
President Trump frequently lambasted it as “the worst deal ever negotiated.” His administration argued that the JCPOA failed to address Iran’s ballistic missile program, its support for proxy groups in the Middle East, or the fact that some of its nuclear restrictions (the “sunset clauses”) would expire over time. By withdrawing and re-imposing “maximum pressure” sanctions, the administration hoped to force Iran back to the negotiating table for a “better” deal. The result was the opposite. The move deeply alienated European partners, who had viewed the deal as a cornerstone of global non-proliferation efforts. In response, Iran gradually resumed its enrichment activities, bringing it closer to a potential nuclear weapon than it had been under the agreement and significantly raising regional tensions.
The World Health Organization (WHO): A Pandemic-Era Breakup
The final major withdrawal of the Trump presidency came at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. In July 2020, the administration formally notified the United Nations of its intent to leave the World Health Organization. President Trump had grown increasingly critical of the WHO, accusing the global health body of being a “puppet of China” and of mismanaging the initial response to the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan.
He argued that the U.S., as the WHO’s largest single donor, was not getting value for its money and that the organization needed fundamental reform. The decision to withdraw in the middle of a global health crisis was met with alarm from public health experts, medical associations, and international allies. Critics argued that sidelining the U.S. from the primary institution coordinating the global pandemic response was self-defeating and would undermine efforts to develop vaccines, share data, and prepare for future outbreaks. As with the Paris Agreement, this was another decision swiftly reversed by the succeeding Biden administration.
Gauging the Public’s Pulse: Does America Want to Go It Alone?
The central question remains: Does this pattern of withdrawal reflect the will of the American people? The answer is far from simple, revealing a nation deeply fractured in its view of the world.
The Deepening Partisan Divide on Global Engagement
Public opinion on foreign policy has become another casualty of America’s hyper-partisan environment. Polling data consistently reveals a stark chasm between Republican and Democratic voters. A significant majority of Republican voters express skepticism toward international organizations and treaties, believing they infringe on U.S. sovereignty and fail to serve American interests. They are more likely to see international relations as a competitive struggle and to agree with the premise that allies are not paying their fair share. Trump’s “America First” rhetoric resonates powerfully with this segment of the electorate, which feels that for too long, a “globalist” elite in Washington has prioritized international concerns over the needs of ordinary Americans.
Conversely, Democratic voters overwhelmingly support international cooperation, believe in the value of alliances, and see global challenges like climate change and pandemics as requiring multilateral solutions. For them, Trump’s withdrawals represent an abdication of American leadership and a dangerous retreat from global responsibilities. This partisan split means there is no single “public” to follow; instead, there are two distinct political tribes with fundamentally opposing worldviews.
Economic Nationalism vs. Global Interdependence
The appeal of Trump’s message is deeply rooted in economic anxiety. For decades, communities across the American Rust Belt and rural areas have witnessed the decline of manufacturing jobs, which they attribute directly to globalization and “bad” trade deals like NAFTA. Trump’s decision to withdraw from the TPP and his general hostility towards free trade agreements were seen by these voters as a long-overdue defense of their livelihoods. The narrative of putting American workers first, even at the cost of diplomatic friction, is a potent political tool.
However, another large segment of the population and the economy sees things differently. They understand that American prosperity is intrinsically linked to global supply chains, export markets, and international investment. For tech companies, the agricultural sector, and multinational corporations, global interdependence is not a threat but a reality and an opportunity. This economic divide fuels the political one, making a national consensus on the value of international economic agreements nearly impossible to achieve.
Security Concerns and the Ambivalent View on Alliances
Interestingly, the public’s skepticism does not always extend uniformly to security alliances. While Trump has been consistently critical of NATO, repeatedly questioning the value of the alliance and the commitment of its members, public support for NATO has remained remarkably resilient, even among many Republicans. This suggests that the American public may differentiate between what they perceive as an unfair economic deal and a foundational security pact.
There is a broad, if sometimes shallow, understanding that alliances provide a crucial security buffer for the United States. The idea of “standing with our allies” still holds sway. This creates a potential disconnect between the “America First” leadership and the public’s sentiment. While voters might cheer the withdrawal from a climate accord or a trade pact, a full-blown withdrawal from a cornerstone military alliance like NATO could prove to be a much harder sell, potentially creating a political backlash that even a leader like Trump would have to heed.
The Road Ahead: A Potential Second Term and Its Global Implications
The first Trump term established a clear precedent. A potential second term would likely see an attempt to institutionalize and expand the “America First” doctrine, with profound consequences for global stability and the U.S. itself.
What’s Next on the Chopping Block?
Should Trump return to office, analysts anticipate a renewed and more aggressive assault on multilateralism. Conservative think tanks and policy groups, such as the Heritage Foundation with its “Project 2025,” are already drawing up detailed plans to staff a new administration with loyalists committed to this vision. Potential targets are numerous. There could be a push to drastically reduce funding for or even withdraw from the United Nations. The World Trade Organization (WTO), whose dispute settlement system Trump has long railed against, could be rendered completely inert or abandoned.
The most alarming prospect for many international observers is a potential U.S. withdrawal from NATO. While this would be a complex and legally contentious process, Trump has repeatedly floated the idea, expressing frustration with member spending and questioning the core principle of collective defense under Article 5. Even short of a formal withdrawal, a second Trump administration could effectively hollow out the alliance from within, refusing to participate in joint exercises, withdrawing U.S. troops from Europe, and signaling to adversaries like Russia that the American security guarantee is no longer ironclad.
The Long-Term Consequences for U.S. Credibility
Beyond any single agreement, the most enduring damage of this “pendulum” foreign policy is to American credibility. When one administration negotiates and signs a major international accord, only for the next to tear it up, the United States begins to look like an unreliable and erratic partner. Why would any country, friend or foe, invest years of diplomatic capital in negotiating a long-term agreement with Washington if it can be nullified by the outcome of the next election?
This erosion of trust has far-reaching consequences. It makes it harder to build coalitions to counter threats from nations like China and Russia. It weakens the U.S. dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency. It undermines America’s ability to set global standards on everything from technology and trade to human rights. In essence, it creates a leadership vacuum on the world stage. This is a vacuum that other powers, with very different values and interests, are more than happy to fill, potentially leading to a more fragmented, unstable, and dangerous world.
Conclusion: A Nation at a Crossroads
Donald Trump’s presidency marked a radical break from seventy years of American foreign policy. His willingness to withdraw from major international agreements, driven by his “America First” ideology, has forced a national and global reckoning with the future of American leadership. The question of whether the public will follow him down this path is, in many ways, the defining political question of our time.
The answer, as we have seen, is deeply unsatisfying: some will, and some won’t. The American public is not a monolith. It is a deeply divided electorate, with one half animated by the promise of a nationalist revival and a rejection of globalist entanglements, and the other half committed to the ideals of international cooperation and American leadership. Trump did not create this divide, but his political genius was in recognizing, harnessing, and amplifying it.
The path forward is uncertain. A continued push toward withdrawal in a potential second Trump term would test the resilience of global institutions and the loyalty of American allies as never before. It would force the world to contemplate an order no longer underwritten by the United States. Conversely, a rejection of this approach would signal a desire to return to a more traditional role, though rebuilding the trust lost would be a monumental task. Ultimately, the choice made by American voters is more than just a domestic political decision; it is a verdict on the character of the 21st-century world order. The nation stands at a crossroads, and the direction it chooses will resonate for generations to come.
