Miles Boyko, Special to The Denisonian–
As an international studies major with internationalist ideals, I was always worried by the “America First” ideology. However, many in my social circles weren’t.
Foreign policy falls lower than domestic issues in civil discourse, but the idea of American isolationism also has a historically bipartisan appeal. Tariffs are part of this idea, economic isolation, in theory, allows a nation to become self-sufficient, whether that can be achieved in a modern interconnected world is to be determined. They are also being used as an impressively powerful bargaining chip on the international stage, bringing certain nations to the negotiating table even if relations are less than ideal.
However, tariffs have hit the national discourse because they influence the stock market and economy as a whole. I personally think having the economy as a number one issue is stupid (my roommates can attest to my ideas in that wheelhouse) but I understand why it grabs the focus of the masses. Just as tariffs have rallied conservative advocates towards foreign policy, a topic they usually trail in during polling season, liberals have rallied around them to give themselves standing in economic policy, an area where they are similarly weak.
However, that is not what we should be worried about when it comes to this administration’s most prominent foreign policy tool.
Tariffs as a tool to sour relations and break trade also give President Donald Trump convenient excuses to pull the U.S. out of other international obligations, the ultimate goal of the “America First” policy. We could see quieter versions of this during Trump’s first term. An example of this was when the U.S. first pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement. Even more under the radar was the lack of American diplomatic representation in embassies and conferences around the world. However, I am most worried about America’s troop deployments under “America First.”
The U.S. maintains over 150,000 active-duty troops worldwide to support allies like South Korea and Germany and deter adversaries such as China, Russia, and Iran, not engaging in actual combat. American military bases exemplify both soft and hard power: they provide a physical deterrent through military strength (hard power) while simultaneously fostering economic and diplomatic ties with host nations (soft power). Bases create jobs, facilitate trade, foster communication, and signal long-term U.S. commitment to regional stability.
Trump, however, sees such arrangements as weaknesses, preferring direct demonstrations of force. He only values hard power and disregards the advantages of alliances with “weaker” nations. This mindset led to hasty military withdrawals from Syria and Somalia in his first term, with disastrous consequences. When Turkish forces advanced against the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) during his first term, Trump’s abrupt troop withdrawal emboldened aggression.
Similarly, his 2020 withdrawal of hundreds of special forces operatives from Somalia enabled Al-Shabab (an Al-Qaeda affiliate) to launch a major offensive, undoing years of counterterrorism efforts. Though former President Joe Biden reinstated support, the damage lingers, land and lives can’t be replaced as easily as my stock portfolio.
This is not a call for the U.S. to become involved in all international conflicts— it just gives a warning of the dangers of later-stage isolationism. In a world without U.S. military involvement in South Korea, there are 30,000 fewer reasons for North Korean aggression to stop, with replacements several hundred kilometers and a constitutional crisis away in Japan. Similarly, there would be around 35,000 fewer reasons for Russia to not increase its threats on Europe, as well as 3,000 fewer barriers to ISIS’s resurgence in Africa and the Middle East.
If you are the domestically focused type, it would mean 150,000 more active-duty troops on U.S. soil. Perhaps the most alarming consequence of “America First” is the erosion of U.S. credibility. Trump’s pattern of sudden retreats signals that American commitments are temporary and negotiable. Just as tariffs, and their repeal, have shown our words on trade are flexible. If Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan can prompt a U.S. withdrawal with a phone call, why wouldn’t China or Russia expect different? This emboldens adversaries and destabilizes alliances, making future conflicts between the less hegemonic powers of the world more likely. That is why we should be worried about tariffs.
Miles Boyko ‘28 is an international studies major from St. Louis.