
On Monday, Donald Trump promised to “pursue our manifest destiny into the stars, launching American astronauts to plant the stars and stripes on the planet Mars”. It was a quintessentially Trumpian moment. On the one hand, it was genuinely shocking for an American president use the phrase “manifest destiny” in 2025. On the other hand, it was hard to take seriously in a sentence about conquering Mars.
The phrase first appeared in 1845 in an unsigned editorial in The United States Magazine and Democratic Review. The “destiny” in question was America’s mission to expand across the continent, conquering or displacing all those who lived there. After advocating the annexation of Texas, and the eventual conquest of California, the editorial speculated that the future of “the British Canadas” lay in “their own early severance of their present colonial relation to the little island three thousand miles across the Atlantic; soon to be followed by Annexation”.
In his postmodern remix of manifest destiny, Trump has also expressed interest, not only in space, but in territorial expansion closer to home, rambling about “taking back” the Panama Canal, buying Greenland, and turning Canada into “the 51st state”. The chances are that he isn’t serious about annexing Canada, or actually sending astronauts to claim the red planet for the United States. Even so, his embrace of expansionist rhetoric reveals the contradictions of the MAGA project.
We’re often told that Trump’s domestic policies represent a “populist” break from the Wall Street-friendly Republican Party of Ronald Reagan or the two Bushes. And this break from GOP orthodoxy is supposed to extend to foreign affairs. Many Trumpists claim to deplore the post-9/11 “neocons” who led the country into long and bloody wars in the Middle East.
Yet the “populist” element of MAGA was always pretty thin. Trump’s first term was a four-year orgy of union-busting, deregulation, and tax cuts for the wealthy. But hope springs eternal, and many of his supporters are optimistic that with fewer “establishment” Republicans in the room, Trump’s second term might be different.
There are others who argue that Trump’s (allegedly) non-interventionist foreign policy was itself populist. In 2022, for instance, Jordan Peterson told the political commentator Kyle Kulinski that he supported Trump because the Democrats had “betrayed the working class”. When Kulinski asked him what Trump had done for the working class, Peterson shot back: “Well, how about no war?”
This narrative has always strained the truth. During his first term, Trump’s foreign policy was hawkish in many ways. He tore up Barack Obama’s détente with Iran; ordered the assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani; and dramatically escalated America’s drone war over the skies of multiple Middle Eastern nations. He signed off on Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, and de facto certified their annexation of East Jerusalem by fulfilling the longtime neoconservative goal of moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
Nor has Trump given any indication of a more peaceful second term. Even as he takes credit for the ceasefire and the release of hostages, he doesn’t seem especially troubled by the possibility that Israel will soon restart the war. And one of his first acts in office was to reverse Joe Biden’s sanctions on some of the most violent Israeli settlers in the West Bank, who have been pursuing their own version of “manifest destiny” by trying to drive Palestinian civilians out of the territory.
Even when it came to America’s relationship with Russia, Trump was a far bigger hawk than Obama. This fact has long been obscured by Trump-haters, who often portrayed him as Vladimir Putin’s puppet, and Trump’s defenders, who wanted to hold him up as a non-interventionist. Yet one of the GOP’s main critiques of Obama’s foreign policy back in the day was that he was “soft on Putin”. Obama held back on sending heavy weaponry to Ukraine so as not to escalate tensions. Trump reversed this decision within his first year in office, while also pushing hard against the Nord Stream pipeline, badgering European nations to meet their commitments to Nato, and even lobbing a few bombs at Damascus when that city was full of Russian soldiers.
That said, Trump’s rhetoric on Russia has been (mostly) more conciliatory since he’s been out of office. Despite claiming that Putin would never have “dared” to invade Ukraine if he’d been president, and allegedly telling the crowd at a fundraiser last spring that he would have bombed Moscow if the invasion had taken place on his watch, Trump has often voiced support for a negotiated de-escalation between Russia and Ukraine. Yet this is hardly a sign of an isolationist retreat to the home front. Instead, as the rhetoric of many MAGA luminaries has made clear, it’s a harbinger of an imperial pivot to Asia. One of Trump’s most important media allies, Tucker Carlson, has said in so many words that “our main enemy is China” and “the US ought to be in a relationship with Russia, allied against China”.
Where, then, does the disagreement between MAGA Republicans and the old “neocon” Republicans lie? Do Trumpists distrust the neocons because they were warmongers, or because they justified their warmongering as a crusade on behalf of democracy and human rights?
A consistent theme in Trump’s rhetoric over the years has been that the United States, far from being an imperial hegemon running roughshod over the rights of weaker nations, has been the victim of both military and economic “bad deals”. In this view, it’s not that America has no right to cluster-bomb, invade, and occupy other nations; it’s that wars should benefit American self-interest. If we were to look at George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq through this lens, the problem wouldn’t be that it was an unjustifiable war of aggression — it would be that it was a misguided attempt to help foreigners at the expense of American interests.
The MAGA critique of neoconservatism can thus be seen as foreign-policy extension of Albert Hirschman’s “futility thesis” — the classic Right-wing notion that do-gooders who don’t understand how the world works end up making everything worse. Well-meaning liberals, so the theory goes, raise the minimum wage and this (allegedly) leads to more unemployment. For some Trumpists, the same goes for foreign wars.
The difference between these two critiques of neoconservatism is crucial. The first leads to consistent opposition to avoidable wars. The second only rules out wars judged too altruistic to serve American “greatness”.
The kind of warmongering that cloaked itself in unconvincing appeals to altruistic values was bad enough. What Trump is openly promoting in his “manifest destiny” phase is warmongering that is free from even that moral burden. If Greenland is strategically valuable to the United States, America should just take it — the wishes of the native Greenlanders be damned. If giving the Panama Canal back to Panama a quarter of a century ago was a “bad deal”, we should just reverse it — by force of arms if necessary.
Trump may not follow through on any of it. He wouldn’t hold back for moral reasons, or even for fear of coming across as a territory-grabbing imperialist. That prospect clearly doesn’t bother him. But he may well make the calculation that none of it would be worth the risk.
If Trump does end up marching America into war, however, he will make an even bigger mockery of his alleged MAGA “populism”. None of the children of Trump’s tech billionaire chums will come home in flag-draped coffins. Just as they did during Bush’s wars after 9/11, the children of the working class will pay the price. But this time around grieving parents won’t even be fed consoling lies about wars fought on behalf of freedom and democracy. The only comfort they’ll have is that, in the judgement of our billionaire real-estate-developer president, their children’s deaths helped to Make America Great Again.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeSo now we’re just throwing narratives at a wall until one sticks. Got it. The Proletarian Science is good for that.
That said, I do appreciate the Hirschman reference. Looks like the guy had alot of great ideas and his Futility Thesis seems quite borne out by reality. Minimum wage hikes don’t “allegedly” cause job loss. They cause job loss or else they cause inflation. Its very basic economics. Inflation is effectively a regressive form of taxation on middle and lower classes.
As far as being a “Hawk” there’s nothing to suggest that. He’s posturing and posturing doesn’t work unless he can generate leverage, which coincidentally is aided by the Left’s hysteria. The Left’s hubris and desire to control the narrative every step of the way is it’s achilles heel. The more narratives that are spun the less credibility his opponents have when the narratives don’t come to fruition.
Word salad, anyone?!?!
You make Trump sound like he occasionally knows what he’s talking about!
Aww thanks buddy. Glad to have you back!
I am no friend of Trump, but even I concede that in his blundering around doing things on a “stream of consciousness” basis, he occasionally does something worthwhile.
More often in few days than Biden did in 4 years
Trump does way more stupid stuff though.
The minimum wage rose many times leading up the pandemic, yet unemployment never rose and inflation was largely static, so much so there was talk of negative interest rates
inflation was largely static
Governments everywhere in the West conceal inflation by diverting it into housing costs and then excluding those from the inflation metrics. Inflation figures are meaningless.
Precisely, well said.
I think this is the prevailing rule: Inflation and huge spending only matter if you succeed in holding the Other Side to blame for it.
Housing costs aren’t related to the minimum wage though. Nobody on minimum wage in Britain can afford to buy a house
Or in the U.S.. None can evenzfford to rent on minimum wage right now. The latest strategy is shared ownership, as it takes multiple incomes.
We are told that Trump’s foreign policy was hawkish, with the implication that thereby his perceived desire to avoid US involvement in armed conflicts abroad is nothing of the sort.
Well, here’s what. The Obama deal that Trump opposed with Iran actually had the Iranians laughing all the way to the bank, and their various clients across the middle east making hay and mayhem with the wealth accruing thereby to their Persian paymasters.
And the decision to give Ukraine heavy weaponry? You know, enough of the stuff and the Russians might have thought twice. It wasn’t on Trump’s watch they invaded.
Projecting strength, and being prepared, and not appeasing your enemies – that’s how you avoid wars. It’s when people think you’re weak, deluded, easily fooled or unprepared that they take their shot.
Oh, and he was demonstrably right about Nord Stream too.
Finally, I find it curious that the author seems to think it would be in some way preferable for the parent of a slain child to know that they died fighting for ‘freedom and democracy’ in some place neither willing or able to embrace either (never mind that that would amount to an imposition of western values on other cultures, but I digress) rather than defending the nation’s self interest.
The author’s list of Trump’s hawkish actions were keeping the predators at bay (right brain job), and didn’t involve the US workers, but like most UnHerd writers, he cannot put aside that wishy washy, liberal left, detached academic aloofness that, ironically, shows that while they exhalt their own logic amongst the detail (left brain job) of their own fantasies, they forget that scanning the horizon for malevolence is part of being POTUS, and CiC.
Excellent comment
This critique of Israel isn’t gonna go down well with UnHerd’s Israel Lobby
Readers’ Israel Lobby, bro 🙂
You should be more precise in your wording.
.
P.S. By the way, the author is a Jacobin columnist. I can’t understand who helps UnHerd find such convinced denouncers of evil imperialist America:
https://x.com/BenBurgis/status/1881449079563251998
Like a fly to a poo, El Uro the genocidal freak appears
The way to avoid war in the Middle East is to arm Israel to the hilt and make it absolutely clear that the Israeli’s have your unconditional backing, not to hem and haw and send planeloads of used dollar bills to Tehran.
October 7th and the Russian march on Kyiv happened because there was a weak, vacillating and easily manipulated fool in the White House. Obama-Biden have demonstrated yet again that hand-wringing ‘ethical’ policy is a recipe for disaster in foreign affairs.
Most of the war in the Middle East is the result of America giving Israel a blank cheque. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine how US (and most other Western countries’) “leaders” could be more accommodating.
Epstein and AIPAC have done their work well.
“One of Trump’s most important media allies, Tucker Carlson, has said in so many words that “our main enemy is China” and “the US ought to be in a relationship with Russia, allied against China””. I think that is the wrong way round. China is an economic competitor, and needs to be matched in that regard. It also needs to be dissuaded from invading Taiwan. However, it does make things, and provides net benefit to the world. Russia, on the other hand, has no redeeming features whatsoever, and is a “forever enemy”.
“Is Donald Trump just another hawk?” I hope so!
So do I, an Emperor should behave like an Emperor.
I don’t know about that, but he could give some curry to the Russians. After all, they richly deserve it.
Being a Hawk isn’t the same as being a NeoCon.
I know the difference. They are a hawk when they attack someone you hate, and a NeoCon when they attack someone you like.
He now has ‘the voice of authority’ and Mr Putin understands that.
As the author makes clear, Trump is pretty hawkish in that he is not afraid to use force but he believes it should only be used if it is effective and in America’s interests. No US money or boy’s lives should be lost except for the obvious benefit of American citizens. So no “pro-democracy” adventures and no free-rides for the Europeans. If he is an Emperor, he is one of the Good Emperors. The author may disapprove of his Imperial outlook but most US citizens don’t.
And welcome back Charles. I haven’t seen your name in the comments for a while.
Thank you.
I agree he will be one of the ‘Good Emperors’, and will abstain from pointless foreign adventures.
He will also remind Europe that it has hidden behind the American shield for far too long, and that it is about time they ‘paid their way”. Obviously there will be much ‘weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth’, but you don’t argue with Caesar!
The hawkish historian is back! You’ve done a Lazarus, or whatever pagan equivalent you prefer. Seems that Aphrodite Rises and I lamented your probable passing much too early several months ago. You‘ve often stated that “war is the father of all things”. Maybe a world so much at one another throats, from the household to the global level, has revived you? Best of luck to you and your guard dogs.
Thank you, just a bit of heart trouble but fortunately was CPR’d back to life by one of my dogs!
I can’t quite see the “River Tiber foaming with blood” yet, but I live in hope!
Excellent. I’m genuinely glad you’re back.
Nihil.
… and your problem is? !!
First there is no “we are told”. This phrasing undermines journalistic opinion writing. On the other hand, I’m holding my breath on this issue until Trump releases the September 11th files and the Kennedy files. I believe that if these files are released without redactions—especially the Kennedy files, which are over 60 years old now—then I’ll be able to make an informed assessment about where this might lead.
Regardless , I have a sense that Kennedy might have been eliminated because he challenged the status quo in a way that could have led to a war with the USSR. Empires fall because of too many wars but there is money to make, but also war strategy are different now and closer to home!
If USA starts to focus on expansion without allies, the demise escalates! Also I am already seeing cracks with ME allies, but a broke guy cannot rule the world. Trump will be educated in the difference between money vs power!
Trump could revalue gold, that would have massive implications, but could reinforce the position of the USD
The only way we’ll go back to gold is if the international monetary system breaks down.
Policymakers (and financiers) hate how gold would fetter credit creation
Trump’s first term was a four-year orgy of union-busting, deregulation, and tax cuts for the wealthy.
Where would scribes be without their preferred talking points. Tax cuts apply to people who….wait for it….pay taxes. In the US – and the UK, for that matter – the burden falls disproportionately among the top 10-25%. It’s a key reason so many are leaving England.
I am not in the million dollar bracket but I am a net payer of taxes. If my bill is reduced, that is money that can be used for something far more productive than funding stupid govt programs. Also, the tax cuts INCREASED revenue to the federal treasury, making an already mindless talking point sound even worse.
Also, this: certified their annexation of East Jerusalem by fulfilling the longtime neoconservative goal of moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Congress adopted that as US policy in 1995, when that noted neo-con Bill Clinton was president.
“tax cuts INCREASED revenue to the federal treasury,”
I am at a loss as to how the U.S. national debt increased by roughly 20% while the coffers were beimg filled with that tax cut revenue. As a simple American taxpayer, I admit I benefitted, but very little from said tax cuts, while the upward transfer of wealth to, not the top 25%, but the top .1-1% has been dramatic. Increasing their wealth exponentially.
The US, like it did with Alaska, could purchase Greenland at a very low cost, with only around 60,000 citizens
Canada? Well that would have to come from Canadians, but to put it in perspective, 90% of the 30 million Canadians live within 150 miles of the USA border.
Panama, well who knows but something will be done with the threat of China on their backdoor.
Trump’s claim to be anti war has some credence compared to previous Presidents, fixing the Ukranie/Russia war will be a critical test.
Yes, buying Greenland makes a lot of sense from strategic and resource standpoint.
Greenlanders have terrible health outcomes and seem to want to shrug off Denmark’s colonial governance… America could easily wind up annexing the country with the consent of most of the populace assuming the bride-price is right.
Ben Burgis writes (in a response to the argument that the US was involved in no wars during Trump’s first term): “During his first term, Trump’s foreign policy was hawkish in many ways. He tore up Barack Obama’s détente with Iran; ordered the assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani; and dramatically escalated America’s drone war over the skies of multiple Middle Eastern nations. He signed off on Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, and de facto certified their annexation of East Jerusalem by fulfilling the longtime neoconservative goal of moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.” (He doesn’t mention Afghanistan, but Trump was unable to extract the US from what Bush II and Obama had pursued.)
The actions that Burgis lists were mostly political, not military. The military actions (killing Soleimani and operating drones over the Middle East) did not expose US soldiers or airmen to death from enemy action. From US voters’ point of view, Trump initiated ‘no new wars’ in which their sons could be killed.
Iran fired missiles at US bases after Soleimani was killed. You can argue that there were just a few concussions, and no one came back in a box, but there’s a thin line there. Had it gone another way, there could have been many coffins. It might have been the right call- but it did risk war.
With high density energy being the foundation of Western Civilization let alone American Hegemony, Trump will intersect his trade policy with foreign policy to ensure America has the energy it needs and the revenue from energy that it needs.
This in turn will put a particular emphasis on the balance of trade and securing or even buying alliances with resource rich countries like Greenland and Canada.
Overall Trump’s strategy is to remain strong at the global level especially in relation to China and this means securing sufficient supplies of energy and materials to achieve that aim.
US interests are not served by allowing Putin, Xi, Khamenai or Kim Wrong-Un much licence. That hasn’t and isn’t going to change soon. The Isolationist stuff was always overdone and for electoral advantage. Even FDR played that benign deceit when he needed to.
Trump’s instinct on reciprocity from Allies isn’t wrong either.
The issue is more can he hold to some sort of coherent, consistent strategy or get distracted late at night about something he’s watched on TV, Social media or seen on X. Can he consistently concentrate basically? Can he recognise his words can also have very undesired effects as well as those he desires, knowing when to weigh things up properly in advance? Can he listen to multiple bits of advice and not just be swayed by who he saw last and create internal chaos in the process?
There is no doubt he has some political instincts that are exceptional, but not every time. And he won’t hold back Father Time on his cognitive capability anymore than the rest of us when we get to almost 80.
This article misses the point that US foreign policy has been determined by the interests of arms manufacturers and their representatives in the US military and intelligence agencies. The US has fought wars so that new orders can be placed for further arms. That was why no attempt was made to bring the military equipment back from Afghanistan. It could be replaced at great profit to corporates such as Raytheon.
I do consider the Trump’s reactions to many things are impulsive and not always consistent. However this obviously left-wing author seems to struggle with a very basic concept, which many westerners do, of distinguishing between States and organisations who are your active adversaries, and those who are not.
In this connection Iran is most certainly an adversary of the United States and has been ever since it outrageously seized those hostages for months. Yes you can have a deal in which allows Iran to continue exporting terror and outrageously and uniquely threatens to obliterate an entire other nation state (a friendly state to the West).in its region. The fact that it doesn’t yet have the power to do so, is no thanks to the Liberal left hand wringers who don’t like facing up to this basic truth of the world – or even think that perhaps the Iranian regime is not much worse than Trump anyway! People who essentially prefer Iran to Israel lie in the unfortunately very long ranks of useful idiots.
No single state in the world can ever say they are never going to use violence in any circumstance.
A rare clear-sighted analysis, objectively cutting through all the wishful thinking. So, what’s next for our Hollywood Caligula, one wonders? And yet we all know Harris may likely have been worse on Russia. America the flailing giant.
Today’s response to Colombia and the reports on the call to the Danish PM seem of a piece.