First year of presidency promising “America First” realism in foreign policy has delivered not clean break, but deeply contradictory picture. Resulting scorecard is therefore divided against itself.
On one side are qualified advances for responsible statecraft: new National Security Strategy repudiating primacy, renewed dialogue with Russia, and some diplomatic breakthroughs forged through pragmatic deal-making.
On other, particularly in Latin America, lies stubborn residue of ill-conceived interventionism, and, like in Middle East, strategic incoherence — legacies of very foreign policy orthodoxy Trump administration vowed to overturn.
This is central tension of moment: government caught between some restraint tendencies and actions still firmly rooted in ruinous interventionism.
Five Foreign Policy Successes for Realism/Restraint in 2025
1. A New National Security Strategy
The new National Security Strategy (NSS) represents significant, if incomplete, shift away from pursuit of primacy. Its formal rejection of global dominance marks necessary break from post-Cold War consensus that led to endless war and strategic overextension.
Framing power, balancing, and prioritization as central pillars of statecraft — while explicitly stepping back from democracy-versus-autocracy ideology, cornerstone of Biden administration’s strategy — creates space for more focused and sustainable foreign policy. This is clearest in document’s approach to Ukraine, where it acknowledges imperative of managing escalation risks with nuclear-armed Russia.
However, while strategy pivots away from primacy, its transition to restraint at best incomplete. Focus on Western Hemisphere is rational, but Washington’s continued reliance on coercive tools in Latin America risks undermining regional partnerships and pushing nations closer to Beijing — already top trading partner for many.
While strategy correctly diagnoses multifaceted European decline, its language on Europe’s “civilizational erasure” feels over-wrought, and its overt courting of nationalist parties in Europe may backfire in same way administration’s rhetoric on Canada hurt chances of pro-Trump candidate in that nation.
True test will be whether this nascent framework translates into actual policy of restraint. For now, NSS stands as acceptable, though hesitant, first step away from primacy and toward more realistic grand strategy.
2. Re-engagement with Russia on Ukraine
Administration’s handling of Ukraine war is perhaps its clearest — if most contentious — expression of nascent strategic restraint. President Donald Trump’s core objective — to shut war down — is necessary break from prior policy of indefinite proxy war and severed diplomatic contact with Moscow.
He deserves credit for re-establishing direct U.S.-Russia dialogue, launching peace initiative and resisting significant pressure, including from within his own party, to take escalatory steps like supplying Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine or imposing secondary sanctions on Russian oil.
However, this remains highly qualified success. Initiative has been undermined by inconsistent presidential rhetoric and flawed transactional approach. Truly successful strategy would require steadier execution and, critically, must avoid trap of any NATO-like security guarantee to Ukraine.
For now, shift from maximalist aims to active, if messy, diplomacy represents best path toward ending conflict and de-risking direct NATO-Russia confrontation.
3. Breakthrough with Belarus
This achievement stems from discreet, calibrated engagement with Belarussian government, replacing fruitless moralizing and maximalist rhetoric typified by Biden administration and European officials. Current U.S. approach, spearheaded by Special Envoy John Coale (who deserves high praise for this achievement), directly secured release of over 100 high-profile political prisoners in Belarus in exchange for sanctions relief on some Belarussian agricultural exports and prospect of further normalization.
This process demonstrated to both Minsk and its close ally Moscow that Washington can be pragmatic actor, that sanctions are not perpetual but can be lifted in exchange for concrete concessions, creating powerful incentive for negotiation.
4. Restraint in Yemen
2025 U.S.-Houthi ceasefire stands as clear example of America First restraint in action. By securing halt to attacks on U.S. vessels in exchange for ending its own bombing campaign, administration achieved narrow, definable security interest through discrete diplomacy, facilitated by Oman.
Crucially, this success stemmed from refusing to link deal to broader, unrealistic goals, such as demanding Houthis cease their campaign against Israel absent Gaza ceasefire. This disciplined focus on direct, reciprocal arrangement avoided trap of another endless war in Middle East.
5. The Domestic Realignment
Cross-ideological movement for foreign policy restraint gained momentum in 2025. This movement found its most potent symbol in strategic alliance between Republican Congressman Thomas Massie and Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna. Their partnership, focused on reasserting Congress’s constitutional authority over war, became powerful vehicle for growing left-right consensus against endless conflict.
Simultaneously, significant ideological shift occurred on right, particularly among younger Republicans, who are increasingly skeptical of unconditional support for Israel. Together, these developments fractured longstanding bipartisan foreign policy orthodoxy, signaling promising domestic realignment in favor of restraint.
5 Foreign Policy Failures for Realism/Restraint in 2025
1. The Iran Strikes Debacle
Catastrophic strategic blunder. After promising negotiations with Iran, U.S. joined Israeli strikes on Iran, shattering diplomatic progress. Administration’s adoption of Israeli red lines (no uranium enrichment) rather than American ones (no weaponization) has led negotiations to dead-end.
With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu back lobbying for another war with Iran, this time over country’s ballistic missiles (with Trump claiming that nuclear infrastructure was destroyed during U.S. strikes), Trump’s ability to resist pressure will define commitment to restraint in Middle East. Track record is not encouraging.
2. Reckless Escalation with Venezuela
Lethal interdiction of vessels without clear proof of illicit activity constitutes illegal act of war absent congressional mandate. Administration offers shifting rationales for its aggressive posture: first, it was about fighting drug trafficking, then it shifted to allegations of Venezuela “stealing American oil.” This creates overall impression that Trump’s real goal is regime change in Caracas.
Given record, regime change in Venezuela is more likely to produce Libya in Western Hemisphere than prosperous, stable, US.-friendly nation. Besides, focus on regime change exposes glaring inconsistency: while accusing Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro of drug trafficking, U.S. pardons convicted drug-trafficking ex-president of Honduras and actively meddles to support his political party in elections in that nation.
3. The Syria Quagmire Endures
Deaths of U.S. personnel in Syria are direct consequence of failure to decisively end military mission after defeat of ISIS’s territorial caliphate. American troops remain in Syria without clear strategic objective, making them perpetual targets for ISIS and other hostile forces.
There is general acknowledgment that Middle East should no longer dominate U.S. foreign policy. Rather than securing American interests, indefinite deployment in Syria drags U.S. back into regional quagmires and guarantees future casualties. Only way to prevent further loss of life is to finally execute complete withdrawal from Syria.
4. Failure to Apply Pressure on Israel
Trump Administration’s comprehensive failure to apply meaningful pressure on Israel in 2025 represents dual collapse of foreign policy restraint, abandoning both diplomatic leverage and principles of international law.
While providing unconditional support for Israeli actions, administration removed any incentive for Israel to respect Trump-mediated ceasefire in Gaza, let alone pursue genuine political solution with Palestinians.
This abdication was compounded by administration’s decision to sanction International Criminal Court judges investigating conflict. Punishing jurists for following international law to shield ally from accountability is antithesis of restraint and of America First policy. It is myopic and reckless strategy that entangles America as co-sponsor of conflict and injustice.
5. Congressional Dereliction of Duty on War Powers
In December 2025, Congress failed in its most basic constitutional duty when House of Representatives defeated, by razor-thin 211-213 vote, resolution to prohibit unauthorized military action against Venezuela. This was not simple policy disagreement but dereliction of legislative branch’s power to declare war.
Vote came as President Trump had already imposed blockade on Venezuela — act of war under international law — and amassed formidable naval armada in Caribbean, creating clear path toward open conflict. Earlier Senate votes in November also failed to limit Trump’s war powers, with measures falling short 49-51 and 48-51.
Original analysis by Eldar Mamedov from Responsible Statecraft. Republished with additional research and verification by ThinkTanksMonitor.
