The Critical Importance of the UN in a Time of Rising US Isolationism:
US International Involvement in a Second Trump Term
Caleb Stewart, (2024-25 Iowa UNA College Ambassador from Drake University)
With the election of Donald J. Trump as the 47th President of the United States, now more than ever is the time to highlight the steady rise of US isolationism and the critical importance of international cooperation in the United Nations and other global institutions. As Trump’s election amplifies fears in many scholars and policy experts that “he [will] dismantle the liberal order that the United States and its allies have built and defended since World War II,” it is vital that we discuss the foreign policy that defined Trump’s first term, the figures who will shape his foreign policy in the second term, and the benefits the United States receives from its engagement on the international stage.
President Trump’s first term was marked by a break from traditional political norms (both domestic and international), a change in the US approach to the United Nations, and a more drastic shift in how the US engages with other countries. President Trump’s first term was characterized by events such as the US withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord, Trump declining to attend emergency G7 meetings, and Trump leaving UN conferences when said summits required international collaboration and did not serve Trump’s immediate interests. The steps taken throughout his first term clearly emphasize the increasing importance and appeal of isolationism to Trump and his allies. Given Trump’s political platform’s slogan is “Make America Great Again,” this type of self-serving foreign policy logically follows— why negotiate within an international sphere built on compromise when Trump feels the US has a broad mandate to do as it pleases?
The steady rise of isolationism, a consequence of runaway American exceptionalism,
defined President Trump’s first term and is in the run-up to Trump’s second term. The rhetoric used by the Trump campaign followed the same isolationist path as his initial presidency. Given Trump’s threats of utilizing tariffs to force other states and corporations into submission, his isolationist path is clear. Furthermore, with Trump’s picking of Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik for UN Ambassador, Trump signaled “a more combative US posture toward the UN, [given] Stefanik has frequently criticized the international organization, particularly over its criticism of Israel, and last month said the Biden administration should consider a ‘complete reassessment’ of US funding for the UN if the Palestinian Authority continues to pursue a push to revoke Israel’s UN membership.” Trump’s nomination of Stefanik demonstrates the rise and solidification of conservative isolationism as a guiding force of US foreign policy.
Although President Trump claims that working through international organizations leads to poorer outcomes for American interests, the facts show precisely the opposite. While isolationist foreign policy sounds rational in theory, isolationism, in fact, leads to a more unstable world, both economically and politically. Many populists posit that isolationism allows for more state resources to be directed internally as opposed to directing resources to international organizations and cooperation. In reality, the withdrawal of critical US support of major international institutions such as the UN actively undermines US national and economic security interests. For instance, United States Institute of Peace’s Steve Hadley, who is also the former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, argues that “when domestic problems seem overwhelming, there is an instinct to doubt our engagement abroad and say we should be dealing with our problems at home. Historically, though, that approach has not worked out very well for us. In the 1920s and 1930s, it resulted in the Great Depression, and to some degree it contributed to the coming of World War II.” Furthermore, given that “UN operations are one-eighth the cost to American taxpayers of deploying comparable U.S. missions,” disengaging from the UN in any capacity makes little fiscal sense.
The rise of US isolationism contributes to a more unstable world— a world in which everyone is worse off. Only through engagement with international organizations, respect for global institutions and norms, and investing in worldwide initiatives does America (and the world) truly benefit.
What Can You Do:
1. Contact members of your Congressional delegation and inform them of the dangers of adopting isolationist practices.
2. Converse with family, friends, and neighbors about the importance of constructive US involvement on the global stage.
3. Donate to the United Nations and NGOs affiliated with the United Nations.