The News
President Donald Trump’s foreign policy is having an identity crisis: Does “America First” mean avoiding overseas engagements — or pursuing them when they further US interests?
Trump forged an image during his 2016 run that leaned against foreign intervention, stating that he opposed the Iraq war and US involvement in Libya (despite evidence). His more recent vows to pursue US control of Greenland, the Panama Canal, Canada and Gaza are hinting at a geopolitical brand that’s closer to 19th-century “manifest destiny.”
Only a few Republicans are publicly acknowledging the tension. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., posted on X after Trump’s proposal to take over Gaza that “I thought we voted for America First,” adding on Wednesday that “we should not have any American presence in Gaza.”
And one of the party’s more iconoclastic conservatives countered that Trump’s doctrine was never complete non-interventionism.
“I think, if you’re looking toward MAGA and populism, if you’re trying to find a consistent ideology, it won’t be there,” Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., told Semafor. “They’re not ideologues.”
Republicans are preparing to significantly boost defense spending in Trump’s second term, as they did during his first term. For most of them, that’s compatible with the president’s stated disinterest in military commitments — as is Trump’s pursuit of greater US power overseas, to benefit national and economic security.
Trump “takes great pride in the fact that he’s kept us from really being engaged in war,” said Rep. Rich McCormick, R-Ga.
McCormick described Trump’s Gaza ownership talk as less of a direct play and more of a strategy to put Hamas on notice about permanently ending its conflict with Israel: “It’s showing Hamas, if you don’t come to the table and create peace, there’s gonna be trouble.”
Trump’s national security advisor, former Rep. Michael Waltz, made a similar point on Wednesday. The president, Waltz told CBS, is “not seeing any realistic solutions” for rebuilding Gaza after its devastation during the war with Israel.
Suggesting “bold, fresh, new ideas” like a US-controlled Gaza, Waltz added, is designed “to bring the entire region to come with their own solutions.”
Still, Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff faced a myriad of questions about Trump’s remarks that the US could take over Gaza during a Wednesday lunch with GOP senators. Senate Republicans made clear to Witkoff they don’t support that action or spending money to rebuild Gaza, according to attendees.
Some left the meeting with lingering questions on what exactly the plan is.
In this article:
Know More
Before he floated a US takeover of Gaza, which would require displacing and relocating an estimated 2 million-plus Palestinians, Trump suggested retaking control of the Panama Canal, making Canada the 51st state and claiming the Danish territory of Greenland for the US.
Republican lawmakers raced to support him on some of those diplomatically risky goals, introducing legislation to support taking the canal back from Panama and to “Make Greenland Great Again” by purchasing the land from Denmark.
Trump’s suggestion to take Gaza is drawing more heat from Republicans than those gestures. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said Trump’s talk of asserting US control over the Panama Canal “isn’t really about intervention,” but admitted his “antenna went up” after he learned of Trump’s proposal to take over Gaza.
Paul predicted Wednesday that Trump’s team would “clarify that he’s not actually for troops in Gaza.” (White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Wednesday that Trump “has not committed to [troops in the region] yet.”)
However, some of Trump’s closest allies in Congress defended his interest in Gaza. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast, R-Fla., told Semafor it amounted to “intervening in America’s national security, which is what we’re tasked with doing.”
“The Middle East is part of America’s national security interest,” Mast added. “I don’t think Rand Paul would say otherwise, that it isn’t. I don’t think he would say Israel isn’t part of our national security apparatus.”
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., a MAGA stalwart and military veteran, attempted to draw a line between Trump’s diplomatic tough talk and the further step of committing US troops overseas.
“There’s an appetite for the American people to expand our message, but do it in a peaceful fashion,” she told Semafor.
Trump himself alluded to the dissonant goals at the heart of his foreign policy in his second inaugural address last month, saying that the US “will measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end — and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.”
Kadia’s view
Trump’s allies point to ongoing tariff-related negotiations with Canada and Mexico as recent proof that he gets results from threatening a bigger show of US might overseas. So it’s not unreasonable to see his suggestions that the US take over Greenland and Gaza as merely the deployment of strategy that worked for him in business.
“It really is his way of playing chess when other people are playing checkers,” as one close Hill partner, Ohio Rep. Max Miller, told me.
But things may change if a head of state ever calls Trump’s bluff loud enough to bring military involvement closer to potential reality. Trump would then have to clearly define his focus on non-interventionism when it comes to Pentagon resources.
Room for Disagreement
Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, has called for the use of military force against drug cartels in Mexico; for broader reasons, he’s occasionally dismissed as a neoconservative by some of Trump’s online backers.
But Crenshaw said the president has similar views on foreign policy to his own.: “I can defend President Trump’s general attitude and philosophy on peace and strength, because he’s not a non-interventionist,” he told Semafor.
“Make America Great Again means leading the world so that America benefits,” Crenshaw added. “So Trump has actually always been on the same page with people like me.”
Burgess Everett contributed.
Notable
- The Trump administration is looking at pulling all US troops out of Syria, with the Pentagon eyeing a number of options, NBC reported.
- The Gaza redevelopment plan Trump floated would likely violate international laws, per the New York Times.