The ongoing debate surrounding whether former President Donald Trump embodies the principles of a foreign-policy realist or “restrainer” has persisted long enough. His unpredictable policymaking and tendency to contradict himself make it challenging to categorize his views definitively. While he occasionally adopts rhetoric that aligns with restraint—such as his critiques of “forever wars” and his skepticism towards the foreign-policy establishment—it’s crucial to recognize that, at his core, Trump does not represent the restraint movement.
The importance of labeling in political discourse cannot be overstated. Mislabeling can skew public perception and influence how policies are received by the public and lawmakers alike. Trump has made statements that suggest he supports restraint, particularly when he expresses a desire for wealthy allies to take on greater defense responsibilities and shows a clear disinterest in promoting liberal values abroad. If one were to focus solely on his style rather than the substance of his actions, it might be easy to mistakenly categorize him as a member of the realist or restraint community.
However, the label of “realist” or “restrainer” is sometimes wielded as a political tool. For some supporters, including figures like Vice President J.D. Vance, calling Trump a restrainer serves to highlight his commitment to reducing U.S. involvement in costly foreign conflicts. This narrative, however, is not universally accepted. Critics of restraint have also attempted to associate Trump with this label to undermine organizations like the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, which promotes a more restrained U.S. foreign policy.
To truly understand whether Trump can be classified as a restrainer, we must examine his record against the foundational principles of restraint articulated in Barry Posen’s influential work, *Restraint: A New Foundation for U.S. Grand Strategy*. Restrainers advocate against the aggressive strategy of liberal hegemony, which seeks to spread democracy and American ideals through military might. They argue that such efforts often backfire, leading to increased hostility rather than cooperation. For restrainers, diplomacy should be prioritized, and military force should be a last resort.
While restrainers may differ on certain issues—such as how to handle China—they share a fundamental opposition to the reckless use of military power and advocate for a more judicious application of U.S. influence. The idea is to maintain a balance of power that promotes stability without unnecessary military entanglements.
So, where does Trump fit into this framework? The evidence suggests he does not align with the principles of restraint for several reasons.
First, Trump has consistently supported increases to the defense budget, which recently surpassed $1 trillion. This spending does not prioritize genuine national security concerns but instead diverts resources to combat perceived domestic threats. His approach perpetuates the militarization of domestic policy, which experts warn could infringe upon civil liberties—an outcome that directly contradicts the principles of restraint.
Second, while restrainers advocate for a reduction of U.S. military presence in volatile regions like Europe and the Middle East, Trump has failed to make meaningful changes. Instead, he has reinforced traditional alliances and military commitments without addressing the broader implications of such a stance.
Third, although Trump has shown reluctance to deploy ground forces in protracted conflicts, he has utilized airpower in ways that often appear more performative than strategically sound. Recent military actions in Yemen and Iran, as well as the controversial sinking of boats in the Caribbean, serve as examples of this misguided approach. These actions lack a coherent strategic purpose and do not align with the restraint philosophy that calls for thoughtful engagement rather than reactive military displays.
Moreover, Trump has not pursued the diplomatic strategies that many restrainers advocate, such as negotiating a comprehensive agreement with China or fortifying alliances in Asia to counterbalance its rise. Instead, his administration has engaged in trade disputes with key partners and undermined collaborative efforts that could enhance the U.S.’s competitive edge.
Finally, the call for a revival of U.S. diplomacy—a key tenet of the restraint movement—has been largely ignored under Trump’s leadership. His administration has systematically weakened the State Department and undermined traditional diplomatic processes, leading to poorly executed and inconsistent foreign engagements. His recent performance at the United Nations is emblematic of this failure; a lengthy, disjointed speech filled with falsehoods showcased a disarray in U.S. foreign relations that left allies and adversaries alike questioning America’s standing on the global stage.
In conclusion, Donald Trump cannot be accurately labeled as a foreign policy restrainer or realist. His actions and policies reveal a fundamentally different approach that leans towards militarization rather than the thoughtful, restrained engagement that advocates for a more secure and cooperative international environment. While there may be other labels that fit his style better, it is clear that he does not embody the values of restraint as defined by its proponents.
