(Plunder) America First: The Grand Strategy of Donald Trump

“[P]ragmatic without being ‘pragmatist,’ realistic without being ‘realist,’ principled without being ‘idealistic,’ muscular without being ‘hawkish,’ and restrained without being ‘dovish’”—these lines sound like alternate lyrics from U2’s “Running to Stand Still.” You know, the deep cut from 1987, in which Bono advises us to “cry without weeping, talk without speaking,” and “scream without raising your voice.”

In fact, the quote is pulled from the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, released five months ago, and is an attempt to articulate “President Trump’s foreign policy”—as if such a thing exists. This Goldilocks modus operandi, the uncredited authors continue, is “not grounded in traditional, political ideology. It is motivated above all by what works for America—or, in two words, ‘America First.’”

That last sentence, like most of the “bold” declarations in this AI-generated-sounding document, is a flat-out lie. Those two words have no meaning for Trump beyond his ability to monetize them on his made-in-China MAGA merch.

This burst of brazen gaslighting, towards the top of a section titled “What Should the United States Want?”…

We want to protect this country, its people, its territory, its economy, and its way of life from military attack and hostile foreign influence, whether espionage, predatory trade practices, drug and human trafficking, destructive propaganda and influence operations, cultural subversion, or any other threat to our nation.

…is not just laughably false, but the total inverse of the truth. ChatGPT must have cranked out that slop, because there’s no way a sentient human could have written such a ridiculous sentence with a straight face. Protect the country and its people? Please. The well-being of the United States is important to Donald Trump only insofar as it coincides with his own well-being; and the latter always always always trumps the former.

The eminent historian Edward N. Luttwak, who once shared a flat in London with his friend and idealogical fellow traveler Richard Perle, wrote two influential (and controversial in academic circles) books on strategic defense: The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire (1976) and The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire (2009), both of which I used to research my historical novel Empress: The Secret History of Anna K. Looking at those volumes on my shelf, I wondered what the contents of a book called The Grand Strategy of the American Empire—written in A.D. 3026, by some future Edward N. Luttwak, probably in Mandarin, about the Trump Redux—might contain. And it made me laugh.

Under this president, the United States does not have a grand strategy—that is, an overarching plan to marshal U.S. military, diplomatic, economic, technological, intelligence-gathering, and cultural power to achieve precise national objectives. That’s not how Donald operates. He’s all id. This is a guy who razed the East Wing of the White House before he had a viable blueprint for the ballroom he wanted to build, who attacked Iran—Iran!—without the first clue of what to do after the spectacular failure of the initial bombing campaign, who started dating each subsequent wife before breaking up with the previous one. There is no 3D chess being played here. Donald Trump is a creature of instinct—a shark. He’s not Bobby Fischer, and even less so Garry Kasparov; he’s Jaws.

It’s morbidly amusing to watch foreign policy experts attempt to locate a grand-strategy signal in Trump’s geopolitical noise. Robert D. Blackwill, the Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, almost makes Donald’s blundering sound like a “school” of strategic thinking:

The restraint school, often associated with realism and offshore balancing and scarred by unsuccessful recent wars, seeks to slash American global commitments and argues that U.S. military intervention is almost always ill-advised.¹⁰ The American nationalist school insists that the United States should concentrate its attention and strength on the Western Hemisphere, that previous presidents have foolishly agreed to trade and security agreements that hollowed out the nation’s economy, and that only U.S. power, not alliances and global organizations, guarantees enduring benefits for the United States. And Trumpism, a particular version of American nationalism that depends on the personal preferences of President Donald Trump, radically redefines U.S. vital national interests to emphasize bilateral and transactional trade relationships, business deals, and quick diplomatic successes over geopolitical considerations—without collaboration with traditional U.S. allies or fidelity to core American values, including human rights. Those three schools question U.S. international commitments, but for vastly different reasons: restraint seeks to prevent the United States from getting dragged into a conflict that does not directly affect vital interests; American nationalism preoccupies itself with the Western Hemisphere and restoring domestic industry; and Trumpism, while endorsing many elements of American nationalism—including a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine—pursues global diplomatic and commercial successes.

Blackwill is not wrong to suggest that Trump’s foreign policy moves have “radically redefine[d] U.S. vital national interests to emphasize bilateral and transactional trade relationships, business deals, and quick diplomatic successes over geopolitical considerations—without collaboration with traditional U.S. allies or fidelity to core American values, including human rights.” But implicit in that assertion is the premise that the drunk-and-blindfolded dart-throwing that is Trump’s foreign policy has some coherent objective beyond his own self-enrichment.

But at least the Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow recognizes that Trump’s moves run counter to both historical U.S. precedent and common decency. In the “estimation” of R.R. Reno, the editor of First Things, “the Trump administration’s desire to implement a new balance-of-power grand strategy is wise.” (Wise? Did he really write “wise?” He really wrote “wise.”) He continues: “Moreover, although it eschews the idealistic promises of the old grand strategy, sustaining a balance of power in the global system has a clear moral purpose.” (Clear moral purpose? Did he really write “clear moral purpose?” He really wrote “clear moral purpose.”)

Reno goes on:

The Trump administration appears to be animated by a strong consensus in favor of shifting American foreign policy away from the grand strategy of the rules-based international order and toward a strategy of establishing a global balance of power. Today’s media seem unable to grasp this shift. Editorials warn us that Trump is destroying NATO and alienating Canada. Trump’s desire to strike a deal with Moscow is framed as kowtowing to a tyrant. I do not wish to gainsay the bitter feelings of the European heads of state who have been manhandled by the current administration. But reality suggests that the media rhetoric is misguided. The Europeans have committed to spending massive amounts in order to rearm. Canada recently announced a program to install advanced Australian radar technology in the Arctic. These and other measures would not have happened had Trump not exploded the old, idealist grand strategy. Rearmament will strengthen America’s allies. In the new grand strategy, designed to moderate great power rivalry, countries like Germany will be less comfortably supine and far more useful as allies.

Right, because it’s not like allowing Germany to amass the largest standing army in Europe has ever gone sideways before.

Reno argues that “the new [i.e., Trump’s] grand strategy can create something of the peace and prosperity that characterized the nineteenth-century European system,” in which, he explains, after the defeat of Napoleon, Great Britain employed a shifting-alliances strategy that “during the years that stretched from 1815 to 1914…was very good for all Europeans. The continent ­experienced few wars, and those that occurred were limited in scope. International commerce expanded, and standards of living rose dramatically.”

All of that may be true. But is it applicable to what Donald is doing? Really? Even Reno seems to concede that his whole argument is a pipe dream when he adds a qualifying clause: “If executed well by prudent statesmen.” My dude, Trump fired all the good diplomats. The next “prudent statesman” to join Trump’s State Department team will be the first. Our embassies are being run by the likes of convicted felon Charles Kushner, Christian nationalist dingbat Mike Huckabee, Epstein crony Tom Barrack, the Russian-born former White House personnel guy Sergio Gor, Kimberly Guilfoyle, and…Herschel Walker? [looks at the list again] Herschel Walker is a U.S. ambassador? That Herschel Walker? What the actual fuck are we even doing here?

Over at Real Clear Defense, meanwhile, the one-time Alaska House of Representatives candidate Gregory I. Jones not only believes Trump is authoring a “Grand Strategy For a New Century,” as he calls it, but also that Donald is totally kicking ass. He breaks it all down thus, in his March 2026 piece:

Economically, the U.S. competes with tariffs to re-shore critical businesses, reduce dependency on vulnerable supply chains, and rebalance trade. There is the added benefit of generating revenue for the Treasury. The U.S. competes by selling its business environment to attract enormous investments in the economic engines of the future. It also competes by establishing with its partners an independent supply of rare earth minerals.

Diplomatically, the U.S. competes by encouraging its friends to stop slouching toward “warm” collectivism and to reinvigorate the culture that made the West dominant. That means having some frank, uncomfortable discussions, but also being remindful of the beacon of freedom’s blessings. Additionally, resolving intractable conflicts around the World creates space for more productive pursuits, denies safe spaces for autocracies to flourish and elevates America’s brand.

Militarily, the U.S. competes by restoring the Warrior Ethos in a Department of War and retooling for warfare in an age of information versus industrial mass production. It also competes by refusing enemies protection of the rules-based order which they mock and in which they refuse to participate. Want to use your state to run drugs that poison Americans and get your boats blown up across the High Seas. Want to hide behind international law and negotiating agreements that are not abided by and get your regime destroyed and your nuclear program eviscerated.

“Warrior Ethos?” Sounds like Jones is jonesing for some of what Pete Hegseth’s drinking.

That middle part about “frank, uncomfortable discussions” with our European allies concerning the need to “reinvigorate the culture that made the West dominant” echoes something Secretary of State Marco Rubio—who is somehow, to our collective shame, the nation’s top diplomat—said a month earlier, in his disastrous appearance at the Munich Security Conference:

We are part of one civilization—Western civilization. We are bound to one another by the deepest bonds that nations could share, forged by centuries of shared history, Christian faith, culture, heritage, language, ancestry, and the sacrifices our forefathers made together for the common civilization to which we have fallen heir.

And so this is why we Americans may sometimes come off as a little direct and urgent in our counsel. This is why President Trump demands seriousness and reciprocity from our friends here in Europe.

This is why—because: racism. And also: Christian nationalism.

Rubio continues:

And this is why we do not want allies to rationalize the broken status quo rather than reckon with what is necessary to fix it, for we in America have no interest in being polite and orderly caretakers of the West’s managed decline. We do not seek to separate, but to revitalize an old friendship and renew the greatest civilization in human history. What we want is a reinvigorated alliance that recognizes that what has ailed our societies is not just a set of bad policies but a malaise of hopelessness and complacency. An alliance—the alliance that we want is one that is not paralyzed into inaction by fear—fear of climate change, fear of war, fear of technology. Instead, we want an alliance that boldly races into the future. And the only fear we have is the fear of the shame of not leaving our nations prouder, stronger, and wealthier for our children.

Notice Rubio said “our children,” as distinct from the children that his boss Donald Trump trafficked with his long-time chums Jeffrey and Ghislaine.

Writing at Modern Diplomacy, H.M. Sabbir Hossain has a much more clear-eyed view of the grand chessboard. In “The Future of American Grand Strategy in the Trump Era,” he observes that in his second term, Trump has

deepened fractures in U.S. alliances, further eroding trust among NATO members and other longstanding partners. As allies grapple with uncertainty about America’s commitment to collective security, they increasingly seek alternative leadership from powers like China or the European Union. This realignment has complicated efforts to address global challenges, from climate change to geopolitical conflicts, as the absence of cohesive leadership undermines the ability to coordinate effective responses. Meanwhile, rivals such as China and Russia have seized the opportunity to expand their influence, with initiatives like China’s Belt and Road Initiative reshaping global economic and political dynamics in regions such as Asia and Africa.

Domestically driven priorities under Trump’s “America First” agenda have signaled a retreat from the United States’ traditional international responsibilities. This pivot toward isolationism has diminished America’s capacity to lead on pressing global challenges, including public health crises, cyber-security, and transnational threats. As the U.S. has stepped back, authoritarian regimes have felt more emboldened, filling the void left by America’s reduced presence and further destabilizing the liberal international order.

Perhaps the most consequential impact of a Trump return is on the global perception of democratic values. His admiration for autocratic leaders and his transactional style of governance have already called into question the U.S.’s role as a champion of democracy and human rights….

[This is] a critical juncture for American grand strategy. It raises urgent questions about whether the United States will continue to lead in fostering global cooperation or retreat into a more insular and unpredictable role, with lasting consequences for the world order.

What’s most notable about that piece is that Hossain wrote it three weeks after the 2024 election—two months before Trump Grover-Clevelanded his way back into office. I took the liberty of changing it from the future to the present tense, to drive home the point: None of this is a surprise. Everything Trump’s doing now was predictable; Hossain is hardly the only foreign policy expert with a functional crystal ball.

And why was it predictable? Because Trump’s “grand strategy,” such as it is, cannot accurately be expressed in two words (“America First”), but in five:

What’s in it for me?

That’s it. That’s Trump’s entire calculus—on geopolitics, on domestic policy, on business deals, on public appearances, on which Mar-a-Lago-faced women to ogle by the omelette bar. What I wrote in Dirty Rubles, in 2018, is no less true today:

Other presidents might have lacked good judgment, but we never questioned where their true loyalties lay. George W. Bush loved America, Richard Nixon loved America, Herbert Hoover and Warren G. Harding loved America. Trump loves only himself, cares only about himself, is loyal only to himself. And Vladimir Putin has exploited this weakness, to the detriment of not just every American, but every freedom-loving human being on earth.

Start with What’s in it for me, and Trump’s priorities become glaringly obvious:

Because he is a criminal—and because the Epstein Files, and Volume II of Jack Smith’s report, and a host of other documents besides, will prove this incontrovertibly to be true—Trump will do anything, and I mean anything, up to and including using nuclear weapons, to avoid prison, where he wouldn’t be able to go golfing or watch Fox News or grab women by the [redacted] or peddle our nation’s secrets to hostile foreign powers. The top priority, for him, is staying out of the hoosegow. Thus, keeping the Epstein Files under lock and key is not just a game; the Files comprise an existential threat.

There are four powerful individuals in Trump’s orbit that could expose his depravity, his criminality, and his treason: Jared Kushner, Ghislaine Maxwell, Bibi Netanyahu, and Vladimir Putin. This is why he treats those four, and only those four, with such obsequiousness every time their names are mentioned—and why, at the end of the day, he will never betray them. It’s why he helped Israel attack Iran. It’s why he treats President Zelenskyy with such disrespect. It’s why he’s dispatched his son-in-law to negotiate with the Russians and the Iranians. And it’s why he will pardon Ghislaine at the first available opportunity, probably right after the midterms.

Here is one of the few excerpts from the National Security Strategy of the United States of America that isn’t a lie:

We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation. This lack of self-confidence is most evident in Europe’s relationship with Russia. European allies enjoy a significant hard power advantage over Russia by almost every measure, save nuclear weapons. As a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine, European relations with Russia are now deeply attenuated, and many Europeans regard Russia as an existential threat. Managing European relations with Russia will require significant U.S. diplomatic engagement, both to reestablish conditions of strategic stability across the Eurasian landmass, and to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states. It is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, in order to stabilize European economies, prevent unintended escalation or expansion of the war, and reestablish strategic stability with Russia, as well as to enable the post-hostilities reconstruction of Ukraine to enable its survival as a viable state.

Implicit in that paragraph is the understanding that the Kremlin and the Trump White House are already operating in lockstep—which perhaps explains why the president has gone to such lengths to give the latter the aesthetic look of the former. As he did in his first term, Donald appeases his Moscow whoremasters by sowing chaos, weakening the NATO alliance, and destroying the United States from within; the difference now is, he’s purged his administration of anyone “disloyal,” who might tell him no.

If Trump is no longer the president—if he’s impeached and removed, or if he loses re-election, or if he’s term-limited out—the whole house of Trump cards collapses. Thus, Donald’s top three priorities are:

1. Stay out of prison

2. Appease Jared, Ghislaine, Bibi, and Putin

3. Remain president for as long as possible

The presidency shields him from criminal indictment (thanks, DOJ memo!), provides physical security (and killer photo ops when the security breaks down), and affords him enormous power to do things like siphon oil revenue from Venezuela off to his own private bank account in Qatar; make strong statements about the Strait of Hormuz on Friday afternoon, after the market closes, only to reverse course on Monday, so his cronies can cash in; use U.S. taxpayer money to underwrite the IDF’s demolition of Gaza and, currently, of Lebanon, to make way for god knows how many Kushner real estate projects; and sell pardons like they’re luxury condos at Trump Tower.

That’s the fourth and final priority:

4. Take as much as possible.

Donald Trump is a black hole. He is greedy, he is thirsty, he is lusty, he is vengeful. Fifteen months into his second term, his egregious plundering has already veered into Viktor Yanukovych territory. It’s an industrial-scale smash and grab. Mar-a-Lago is basically the American Mezhyhirya Residence. The president has pillaged our tax dollars, our natural resources, our public lands, our tariffs—even the naming rights to our airports and centers for the arts. He exploits his position to extort world leaders and manipulate markets. He insider-trades. He runs a thousand different scams on the dwindling MAGA faithful. He demands his cuts from the venal oligarchs who keep him in power. He enriches his disgusting cronies. He pardons his criminal allies. And I shudder to think what he does to the women unfortunate enough to be in his malodorous vicinity.

The grand strategy of the United States has been subsumed by the grand strategy of Donald Trump. And the grand strategy of Donald Trump is, simply, to serve Donald Trump.

Rome collapsed, Luttwak explains in The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, halfway through the fifth century, once “the provision of security became an increasingly heavy charge on society, a charge unevenly distributed, which could enrich the wealthy and ruin the poor.” (Sound familiar?) The great empire petered out because “the alternative was chaos. When this ceased to be so, when organized barbarian states capable of providing a measure of security began to emerge in lands that had once been Roman,” that’s when Rome lost the only thing left keeping it in place: “men’s fear of the unknown.”

Is our (not ill-founded) fear of a Vance Administration—which will be a Peter Thiel Administration by another name—sufficient to allow Donald Trump to continue his grand-scale plunder, his dismantling of our institutions, his out-of-control spending on stupid bullshit, his usurpation of the Justice Department and the FBI, his Nazification of ICE, his not-so-idle threats of nuclear war? Should it be?

Played out to its logical conclusion, the grand strategy of Donald Trump will end with the total destruction of the United States. That’s where we’re headed. We are in a race against time—and the Chuck Schumers and Hakeem Jeffrieses who are supposed to be leading the opposition don’t seem to realize the clock is ticking. How did Bono put it, in 1987? We gotta do something about where we’re going.

As it stands now, we’re running to stand still.