Initially, the U.S. denied in . Subsequently, President Donald Trump for them. Trump stated he wasn’t pursuing a ceasefire and would to consider military action against Iran. He then two days later and, two days after that, . His senior advisors initially indicated they were before ultimately declaring that regime change leads to “” and he opposes it.
Some supporters view him as a negotiation expert. Critics, however, compare it to “chaos.”
J.D. Vance refers to it as the Trump Doctrine.
“We are witnessing the emergence of a foreign policy doctrine that will positively reshape the country (and the world),” the Vice President stated on Tuesday, before elaborating on a foreign-policy approach that Trump often summarizes as “.”
“The Trump doctrine, as I define it, is straightforward,” Vance explained at the Ohio Republican Dinner on Tuesday. “First, clearly define an American interest, which, in this case, is preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Second, aggressively pursue a diplomatic solution to the problem. And third, if diplomacy fails, employ overwhelming military force to resolve it swiftly and then withdraw before the conflict escalates into a prolonged engagement.”
Former President James Monroe is recognized for initiating the tradition of presidential doctrines, the fundamental principles guiding a President’s foreign policy. The Monroe Doctrine, according to the , centered on three key principles: “distinct areas of influence for the Americas and Europe, non-colonization, and non-intervention.”
Since then, numerous Presidents have articulated their own doctrines, though rarely as explicitly as Vance has for Trump.
Observers Joe Biden’s doctrine. Following Trump’s initial “America First” approach of withdrawing from global forums, some suggested Biden alluded to his own doctrine in a statement prior to his first European trip in 2021: “realizing America’s renewed commitment to our allies and partners, and demonstrating the capacity of democracies to both meet the challenges and deter the threats of this new age.”
In an article titled “What Was the Biden Doctrine?” published in August, former Carnegie Endowment for International Peace president Jessica T. Matthews wrote that “four years is insufficient to fully establish a foreign policy doctrine” but that Biden’s approach appeared “to reject wars aimed at reshaping other nations and to prioritize diplomacy as the primary tool of foreign policy…demonstrating that the United States can be deeply involved in global affairs without resorting to military intervention or the appearance of hegemony.”
For Barack Obama, many summarized his foreign-policy perspective as “,” a guiding principle that some critics deemed while supporters considered in light of a history of costly and overconfident U.S. interventions abroad. “The Obama Doctrine represents a form of realism that is not afraid to use American power but recognizes that its application must be moderated by practical limitations and a degree of self-awareness,” Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. observed in 2009.
TIME described George W. Bush’s doctrine in 2007 as prioritizing “the projection of American military power.” Syndicated conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer initially attempted to the Bush Doctrine in June 2001, before 9/11, as a “new unilateralism” that “seeks to enhance American power and unreservedly deploy it on behalf of self-defined global objectives.”
Following 9/11, observers frequently referenced a issued by the White House in 2002 that highlighted combating terrorism as central to U.S. foreign policy. “We will defend the peace by fighting terrorists and tyrants,” it stated. “We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. … America will hold to account nations that are compromised by terror, including those who harbor terrorists—because the allies of terror are the enemies of civilization.”
Bill Clinton’s doctrine is often attributed to a line from a he delivered in San Francisco in 1999, when he stated: “The United States has the opportunity and, I would argue, the solemn responsibility to shape a more peaceful, prosperous, democratic world in the 21st century. … We cannot, indeed, we should not, do everything or be everywhere. But where our values and our interests are at stake, and where we can make a difference, we must be prepared to do so.”
While Vice President Vance has clarified the Trump Doctrine, some observers had already begun to recognize its outlines. Foreign Policy columnist Matthew Kroenig described in April a similar three-pillar worldview underlying the President’s seemingly erratic foreign-policy approach: 1) America First; 2) prevent America from being exploited—in trade, immigration, and NATO; and 3) escalate to de-escalate.
“As Trump writes in The Art of the Deal, his preferred negotiating strategy revolves around making threats and extreme demands to throw one’s negotiating partner off balance and ultimately bring them crawling to the table for a deal,” Kroenig wrote of the third pillar in what proved to be a remarkably insightful analysis of Trump’s handling of the Israel-Iran conflict.
Whether the Trump Doctrine, which is certainly , will ultimately succeed in positively transforming the U.S. and the world remains to be seen.
