leveraging economic and technological power over military force, aligning with a more isolationist tradition in U.S. history
By Saadula Aqrawi
I believe that the Trump administration’s New Peace Policy focuses on three pillars: strategic restraint, economic nationalism, and bilateral diplomacy. These elements mirror many positions from Trump’s first term, but with clearer articulation and broader institutional support now that his influence on the Republican Party is more consolidated. The policy emphasizes avoiding large-scale military interventions, particularly in the Middle East and Africa. Trump continues to question the value of “endless wars,” a theme he championed during his campaigns. The focus now is on leveraging economic and technological power over military force, aligning with a more isolationist tradition in U.S. history.
Yes, Trump’s peace strategy leans heavily on economic coercion sanctions, tariffs, and trade deals to achieve foreign policy goals. His administration argues that peace through strength doesn’t require boots on the ground, but rather dominance in global markets and supply chains. Trump has made clear his skepticism of international institutions like the United Nations and NATO unless they serve what he defines as America’s core interests. The peace policy asserts that one-on-one diplomacy leads to more accountable and tailored solutions, as seen in his renewed overtures to North Korea, efforts to mediate in Ukraine-Russia tensions, and a potential reworking of the Abraham Accords in the Middle East.
Trump has hinted at revisiting and possibly expanding the Abraham Accords. His approach largely sidelines the Palestinian leadership in favor of broader Arab-Israeli normalization, arguing that peace between states should come before resolving long-standing internal conflicts. Trump has repeatedly stated his belief that peace with Russia is achievable through strength and respect rather than confrontation. His critics warn this may lead to weakened NATO cohesion and a softer stance on Russian aggression. Trump counters that “respectful engagement” could reduce the risk of nuclear escalation and promote regional stability.
I do believe that the Trump presidency’s New Peace Policy marks a bold redefinition of what peace means in American foreign affairs. Whether it leads to actual peace or merely a recalibrated form of geopolitical competition remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that U.S. foreign policy under Trump continues to challenge post-Cold War norms, demanding a global rethinking of how peace, power, and diplomacy interact in the 21st century. From the beginning of his political rise, Trump has distinguished himself with a strong stance against America’s foreign military entanglements. He has repeatedly criticized past administrations for dragging the U.S. into expensive and deadly wars with no clear objective or exit strategy. “We fight, and we fight, and we fight,” Trump has said. “What do we get? Nothing but debt and dead Americans.” Trump’s approach is grounded in the idea that peace is achieved through power and respect, not global policing. He has emphasized rebuilding the military not to fight wars, but to prevent them using strength as deterrence. At the same time, he advocates for placing America’s needs first, securing borders, protecting industries, and negotiating fairer trade deals that prioritize American workers.