My pre-law professor taught me a famous phrase coined by French critic Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr. He said, “The more things change, the more they remain the same.” While this was coined in 1849, this quote is accurate, even in today’s American policy, evident with President Trump’s new agenda.
During the 19th and 20th centuries, American policy was primarily focused on land grab opportunities. Doctrines like Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine deterred foreign nations from intervening with American expansion while fueling the expansionist agenda of the United States. Both of these documents inspired Western expansion and sent messages to countries overseas that the U.S. was becoming a defendable, sovereign nation.
Nationalism, or the political ideology prioritizing a state’s interest, is an American principle that helped fuel territorial expansion and real estate development, shaping the nation’s economic and infrastructure growth.
Key events to highlight this concept include trade deals such as the famous Louisiana Purchase, a land agreement between Thomas Jefferson and Napoleon Bonaparte in 1803, which doubled the size of the U.S. and expanded its economic and territorial influence.
The Monroe Doctrine laid the foundation for future U.S. foreign policy, later expanded by Theodore Roosevelt through the Roosevelt Corollary, which justified American intervention in Latin America. Roosevelt's role in the Spanish-American War contributed to U.S. military victories in Cuba, leading to U.S. control of Puerto Rico and influence over Cuban affairs.
Additionally, U.S. economic and political interventions in Central America helped solidify corporate dominance, contributing to the rise of so-called “Banana Republics” in the early 20th century.
All of this is to say that since the end of American expansion in the early 20th century, American policy shifted to forming alliances with different nations worldwide.
In political science, we are taught that foreign policy is a bipartisan issue. In the past, the Biden, Obama and Bush administrations pushed bilateral agreements on foreign policy.
Biden sought to increase NATO presence with huge militarized budgets for the Russia-Ukraine war. Obama created the Iran Nuclear deal, which sought amends with countries that historically do not align with American values. Bush was known to have started significant international conflicts such as the Iraq war. But, that war was also a bilateral attempt to create alliances with neighbors that shared common values and wage war against those who did not share them. All of these attempts had the same principles of bipartisanship but different approaches.
Unlike his presidential predecessor, Trump has moved away from globalist policies and strengthening international pacts such as NATO. He has also geared his motivations to what is “best for America.”
The popular saying, “America first,” is a modern manifestation of nationalism, which refers to seeing what is best for the country, even at the expense of damaging foreign relations.
Recent events between Canada and the United States highlight Trump's nationalistic policy. Trump’s famous tariff implementation with international trade has frustrated neighboring countries, such as Canada. He seeks to impose a 25% tariff on Canadian imports. Justin Trudeau has reacted with a similar policy, which would increase tariffs on American imports by 25%. This could be considered an ally trade war.
While this might affect the American economy, we must evaluate whether this new approach of nationalist policy applied in international relations is worth the risk compared to a long-standing globalist approach implemented by the Bush and Obama administrations.
The media will show international leaders' respect for Trump. Most recently, the prime minister of India showed support for Trump’s reelection by coining the term MIGA or Make India Great Again as an inspiration to Trump’s famous motto, MAGA.
Now, we enter a new stage where a country's self-determination is more reverent than a country's ability to negotiate and find solutions to intermestic issues.
Trump’s “America First” is revitalizing countries to do what is best for them rather than prioritizing global cooperation and mutual compromise. This shift underscores a growing trend where nations emphasize sovereignty and domestic interests over multilateral agreements, potentially reshaping international diplomacy and economic policies.
And despite bilateral policy, Trump’s foreign policy has become more partisan than bilateral. Ninety-three percent of Republican voters approve his policies, while only 4% of Democrats seek his approval, according to Time.
For Trump’s new, applied nationalist policies, there is evidence to support both sides. Those against these policies are highlighted by Canada’s retaliation after Trump decided to raise tariffs. But on the other hand, other leaders like India’s prime minister publicly endorsed Trump, and even configured a motto after his own.
Whether it be since Obama and Biden’s policies, or Bush’s attempts to combat a waging war, nationalism hasn’t been as heavily implemented in policy since Theodore Roosevelt and earlier presidents. As we enter into a new era of politics, it’s important to mark this change but also acknowledge repeating elements in American politics — nationalism applied in foreign policy.
As Jean Baptiste Alphonse-Karr once said, “The more things change the more they stay the same.”
Abraham Hilu is a UF political science senior
