Is Donald Trump’s America turning inward? – Firstpost

As many modern crises do, it started with a simple mistake. A senior US official, in the midst of a routine exchange on a Signal chat group used by top US Intelligence officials, including the National Security Advisor, Defence Secretary, and even the Vice President, accidentally added a journalist to the conversation. The group was discussing imminent military operations on Houthis, timing, targets, and tactical details. And just like that, the private calculus of US foreign policy became public knowledge.

Dubbed Signalgate, the incident triggered alarms not just about cybersecurity or operational discipline but about something deeper: what it revealed about the changing character of American statecraft. Behind the details of the leak lies a larger question worth asking: Is America, once again, turning inward?

The episode exposed more chinks in US’ foreign policy. Once made behind layers of formal clearance and deliberation, critical decisions now appear to flow through encrypted messaging apps and informal groups. But what was perhaps more revealing than the leak itself were the contents. Expressions of contempt for European allies, dismissals of shared security norms, and a framing of alliances as transactional, pay if you want protection, show a new posture that feels less like global leadership and more like guarded self-interest. To be very frank, a leader should not be criticised for envisaging foreign policy through the lens of self-interest.

It is becoming abundantly clear that this isn’t an isolated episode. Rather, it fits into a broader foreign policy shift under President Donald Trump’s second term. The contours of America First 2.0 are now clearer. They point unmistakably toward a retreat from the cooperative internationalism that defined much of post-war U.S. diplomacy.

From pulling out of global agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and the World Health Organization to pushing steep cuts to foreign aid and questioning NATO obligations, the administration’s actions reflect a narrower conception of America’s role in the world. One defined less by shared values and more by bilateral transactions. If foreign policy used to be about building coalitions, the current approach asks: what’s in it for us?

For US allies, especially in Europe, the implications are stark. Strategic alignment with Washington has long rested on trust. The trust that the US would not only protect its own interests but also help preserve the broader international order. That trust is eroding. If leaked messages mock European partners and reduce military cooperation to a financial ledger, what happens to the notion of a shared global purpose?

In fact, some European leaders have already begun speaking the unspeakable. They have started preparing for a world where the U.S. may no longer be a dependable partner.

One should see these developments from the lens of IR theories. Realism, one of the oldest schools of thought, sees nations as rational actors pursuing their own interests in an anarchic world. Under realism, alliances aren’t based on friendship. Realism sees such alliances as tools of convenience. Seen through this lens, America’s transactional posture is not surprising. It’s merely choosing to pursue self-interest more openly. Realists would argue that the US is asserting its power without the burden of moral obligation.

One could also see it through the lens of retrenchment theory. It describes how great powers respond when they perceive overreach. Faced with rising costs, internal divisions, or shifting global power balances, states pull back. They reduce commitments abroad to focus on domestic priorities. The U.S. withdrawal from multilateral forums, budget cuts to foreign aid, and sharper rhetoric toward allies all suggest that Washington no longer sees its traditional global role as sustainable.

Then there’s hegemonic stability theory, which holds that the global system works best when a single powerful nation, like the US, maintains the rules and provides public goods, such as open trade or security guarantees. But if that hegemon becomes unreliable or self-interested, the system becomes unstable. That’s what Europe and others are now responding to.

Does that mean that the US is becoming Isolationist**?** The term isolationism may feel outdated, evocative of the 1930s, when America turned its back on the world between two wars. Today’s shift is slightly more complicated. The U.S. isn’t withdrawing completely. It’s engaging on its own terms, selectively, with an eye on immediate gains rather than long-term institutional investments.

This is not pure isolationism. But it’s a kind of controlled disengagement. One could see it as a strategic narrowing of focus that, depending on execution, can either strengthen national resilience or weaken global influence.

The irony is that in an age of global challenges, climate change, pandemics, and technological disruptions, no country can afford to go it alone. But the US, in asserting its independence, risks becoming increasingly isolated, not by choice, but by consequence.

Therefore, the US might not be becoming isolationist in the textbook sense. But it is undoubtedly becoming more insular, skeptical of multilateralism, and focused on short-term wins over long-term leadership. The Signalgate incident may have been a small error, but its implications are anything but small. It revealed not only how information flows within the most powerful country in the world but also how ideas about power, partnership, and responsibility are shifting, often quietly and without a plan.

If America continues down this path, it may find that the world doesn’t wait for it to return. And rebuilding trust, once lost, is always harder the second time around.

Aditya Sinha (X:@adityasinha004) is a public policy professional. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.