As the second Trump administration enters its second year, policymakers and analysts alike are reassessing the direction of U.S. foreign policy and its role in the world. Those questions were the focus of a recent discussion hosted by the School of Public Policy, where Miranda Priebe of the RAND Corporation examined how U.S. grand strategy has evolved since the end of the Cold War and what may come next.
The event brought together students, faculty and practitioners to consider competing approaches to U.S. grand strategy–the effort to define, defend and promote America’s national interests–and the implications of these tradeoffs for international security.
Priebe was the perfect person to speak on this topic said Joshua Shifrinson, program director of the Foreign Policy, Strategy and Statecraft Program. “Not only is she a true expert on U.S. foreign policy, but Priebe has done pathbreaking research on thinking through the consequences of different U.S. strategic options for engaging in the world.”
Priebe, director of RAND’s Center for Analysis of U.S. Grand Strategy, emphasized that U.S. foreign policy today reflects multiple competing perspectives rather than a single, clearly defined strategy. She highlighted conflicting pressures within the administration to sustain primacy in the Asia-Pacific, shift attention towards the Western Hemisphere, and maintain U.S. dominance across regions.
Situating these debates in a broader historical context, Priebe noted that in the decades following the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy was heavily influenced by “liberal hegemony,” a strategy integrating support for democracy, economic openness and international institutions with sustained military engagement abroad. An alternative strategy, often called “restraint,” has also gained traction, calling for reducing overseas commitments and a narrower definition of core U.S. interests.
Priebe said that while Trump’s first term strategy challenged the orthodoxy of liberal hegemony, at least rhetorically, its policies maintained the status quo in its use of force, alliance commitments and competition with major powers. She argued that while Trump’s second term lacks a coherent grand strategy, rhetoric and policies reflect both continuity and change. It continues to pursue a hard line against rivals and use force expansively to defend U.S. interests. However, it is less committed to liberal ideals, emphasizing coercive diplomacy with allies, reduced participation in international institutions and more protectionist economic policies.
Catherine Worsnop, faculty director of the new Global and Foreign Policy major, said the event reflects a broader effort to connect students with timely foreign policy debates. Priebe’s visit, she noted, is part of a longer-term initiative at the school to prepare students to understand and address pressing global challenges.
The discussion underscored the complexity of understanding U.S. foreign policy at a moment of significant global change and the challenge of translating competing strategies into coherent policy with real-world consequences.
