State-building has long been a standing tenet of American foreign policy. Critics often refer to it as 20th-century meddling in other countries' affairs, wasting taxpayer money on foreign projects, and useless endeavors to advance imperialistic goals. As the United States grapples with its role on the international stage, the newest installment of the Trump presidency presents an unprecedented approach to foreign policy. This administration's shift towards isolationism echoes the 1920s, a period marked by economic protectionism and a retreat from international engagement. The consequences of that era—culminating in the Great Depression and the outbreak of World War II—serve as a stark reminder of the dangers of turning inward.
In light of historical trends and our current government trending towards the past, we must reconsider America’s role in state-building as a practice of America’s foreign policy. While nation-building has largely become a practice of the past, it should not be, as it remains a crucial tool for promoting stability, democracy, and American interests. Conceptually, state-building is not new to American foreign policy. Post-WWII efforts in Japan and Germany are often cited as successful examples of American intervention in those foreign states having long-lasting benefits. For many Americans, recent memory dwells on failures of state-building, such as the prolonged conflicts and eventual withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the ongoing struggles in Haiti, among others. Despite these negative experiences, I grow skeptical of Donald Trump reducing foreign aid and pushing “America First” policies that could potentially damage relations with our allies and lead to further complications to America’s global goals.
I am not inherently against “America First.” Policy initiatives that include border control, targeting gangs, and energy independence are vital to maintaining American identity and peace. Furthermore, I know it is important for a country’s leader to prioritize its citizens before moving to offshore projects. “America First” keeps America strong but, I believe the cutbacks on aid and trade policies are too extreme and will potentially reduce any positive bargaining chip at our disposal. Notably, the complete disbanding of USAID has raised alarm bells in my mind.
Looking at USAID’s projects, it’s obvious some cracks need patching– wasteful spending on projects unaligned with voter’s preferences. The Republican Administration has a point: its budget can feel underutilized, and clearer directives could fix that. Rather than dismantling it, we should overhaul its operations to build institutions. Think of community-led security or transparent local councils that anchor peace and reduce dependency. The question is, how should USAID and other agencies contribute to our international outreach efforts?
Retreating doesn’t just save money—it courts chaos. Examples from history; post-2014 Ukraine slid toward Russian influence, Libya unraveled after Gaddafi, and Afghanistan’s vacuum of power welcomed the Taliban back. The United States’ disengagement invites power vacuums that hostile actors eagerly fill while developing nations pivot to our economic rivals for aid. State-building, reformed expertly, counters that. It should not be about endless handouts–think about ‘teach a man to fish.’ USAID and other internationally involved organizations could pivot from temporary aid to fostering self-sufficient systems that stabilize regions before collapsing. The cost of doing nothing–refugee crises, stronger enemies–will lead to even more issues that cutting costs will only exacerbate.
I had a political science professor who once said engineers get the glory for building wells in Africa, but institutions ensure the water reaches more villages. He’s right: wells dry up without governance to maintain them. Institutions—local councils, legal frameworks—turn fleeting projects into lasting peace. USAID’s budget might be bloated, but scrapping it would eliminate a tool for building stability. Instead, reform it: prioritize institutions that let nations stand independently, not lean on us forever. This would be the compromise that “America First” Republicans and progressive reformist Democrats could both support, fostering a bipartisan approach to sustainable international development.
Critics call state-building imperialist and Americans are understandably exhausted from oversea burdens. However, isolationism is not free and history spotlights that. It cedes power to China, Russia, and terrorists. The trick will be finding balance: avoid overreach, but work towards progress. Trump’s “America First” doesn’t have to mean America alone. A leaner, sharper approach—building institutions and infrastructure—can preserve our reputation and secure our interests. We carry a democratic responsibility. Disregarding that risks losing the soft power that keeps us strong.
