The singular purpose of American foreign policy should be to advance American interests.
It’s a seemingly simple and obvious statement, but it represents a significant break with the philosophy that has animated U.S. foreign policy for the past three decades.
As a senator deeply invested in our nation’s security, I’ve long argued that our leaders must embrace a new doctrine of American realism to confront the challenges of the 21st century. President Donald Trump’s “America First” approach has done just that, unapologetically putting American power—both military and diplomatic—to use in service of American interests on the world stage.
This shift in our nation’s global posture has already had a dramatic effect. Take the example of NATO. For decades, American presidents politely asked NATO allies to increase defense spending, only to be met with half-hearted responses and stagnant budgets. Dwight Eisenhower warned of a “dry well” in 1953, just four years after NATO’s founding. Lyndon Johnson pushed for burden sharing to offset American military expenses in Europe. George W. Bush pressed for greater burden-sharing during our post-9/11 wars. Barack Obama reiterated the call after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, with Defense Secretary Robert Gates bluntly warning against Europe’s “demilitarization.” Yet by 2017, only three allies had met the 2 percent GDP target agreed to in 2014.
But Trump demanded accountability and got results. By insisting that our European allies shoulder more of their own defense burden, Trump forced a long-overdue reckoning that culminated in a surge of European defense spending. At the 2025 NATO Summit, our allies committed to a new target of 5 percent of GDP on defense by 2035. European nations are now enacting significant increases in their military budgets. This shift, brought about in part by Trump’s leadership, will allow the United States to redirect as much as $100 billion annually from Europe to more pressing priorities in the Asia-Pacific.
Like it or not, Trump’s approach has bolstered transatlantic security in a way no recent president has managed. This isn’t bluster; it’s realism at work. The president is not preoccupied with what Charles Krauthammer described as “the vain promise of goo-goo one-worldism.” He does not think in terms of “liberal international norms” or Wilsonian universalism. His grand strategy is guided by real, material American interests—and he has none of his predecessors’ aversion to direct, candid, muscular assertion of those interests in dealings with our friends and foes alike. Tough love achieved what decades of diplomatic niceties could not.
But this story isn’t just about Europe, where large-scale conflict has already broken out with tragic consequences. Rather, it reflects a broader shift toward pragmatic realism in our alliances—a shift exemplified by men like Elbridge Colby.
As under secretary of defense for policy, Colby has spent the past two decades asking the hard questions that Permanent Washington has studiously avoided. His 2018 National Defense Strategy rightly identified China as our primary geopolitical threat, and his Marathon Initiative has emphasized the need for alliances grounded in clear commitments, not vague assurances. So why is the foreign policy establishment now feigning shock and outrage as he puts these principles into action?
A recent POLITICO piece, featuring numerous unnamed “sources” from inside or close to the administration, took Colby to task for his challenge to the reigning foreign policy consensus. One source bitterly remarked, “He has basically decided that he’s going to be the intellectual driving force behind a kind of neo-isolationism that believes that the United States should act more alone, that allies and friends are kind of encumbering.”
Colby’s realist approach is far from “neo-isolationism,” but it does stand in stark contrast to the Wilsonian idealism that has dominated our foreign policy elite for too long. Idealists have wagered American blood and treasure on the supposed goodwill of other nations, prioritizing international summits and diplomatic pageantry over hard-nosed strategy. They’ve spent years at Davos and the global security conferences building relationships that look good on paper but crumble under pressure. Meanwhile, before 2020, U.S. taxpayers covered roughly 70 percent of NATO’s defense spending; our Indo-Pacific partners were left with ambiguous roles, inviting miscalculation from adversaries like Beijing.
Colby’s strategy is working. Australia is trending toward 3.5 percent of GDP in defense spending. Japan has approved a record-high defense budget of nearly $59 billion. Taiwan has boosted its budget by 8.5 percent amid escalating Chinese military exercises. The June 2025 naval tensions in the South China Sea underscore the urgency: Deterrence requires clarity, not cocktail-hour platitudes. By hardening our alliances now, Colby is attempting to prevent conflict, not courting it. Realism, grounded in national interest and the logic of deterrence, outperforms idealism’s wishful thinking every time.
The foreign policy establishment’s failure to ask these questions earlier reveals their priorities: galas over strategy, pageantry over preparedness. It’s time to move beyond that. A leaner U.S. presence in Europe, paired with a fortified Indo-Pacific coalition, sends the right signal to our adversaries. I commend Colby for leading this effort and urge my colleagues to embrace this pragmatic path.
The next war won’t be averted by toasts or speeches. It must be deterred by strength, resolve, and accountability. As Europe finally steps up and Asia braces for the long competition ahead, let’s ensure America’s foreign policy serves our people first. That is the legacy of Trump and Colby—a legacy we must secure.
Read the full article here
