US foreign policy refers to the set of strategies, doctrines, and diplomatic, military, and economic actions through which the United States government manages its relations with foreign states and international institutions. The scope of what constitutes “foreign policy” - whether it encompasses only formal diplomatic activity or extends to military posture, trade policy, intelligence operations, and foreign aid - is itself a subject of definitional debate among scholars and policymakers. Core questions about the proper goals, instruments, and geographic reach of American power remain contested across academic, political, and strategic communities.

Contemporary US foreign policy is shaped by the legacies of the post-World War II liberal international order, in which the United States assumed a leading role in constructing and sustaining multilateral institutions, alliance networks, and global trade frameworks. The end of the Cold War prompted a period of reassessment, with debates over whether the United States should maintain its extensive global commitments, retrench toward more limited objectives, or adapt existing institutions to new competitive environments.

Several overlapping tensions characterize current discussion. The appropriate scope of US alliance commitments - particularly within NATO - is actively debated, with disagreements over burden-sharing, expansion, and the conditions under which the United States should extend security guarantees. The relative weight of great-power competition (especially with China and Russia), counterterrorism, regional stability, and global governance in setting strategic priorities is disputed among analysts and within the policy community. The role of values - democracy promotion, human rights, international law - relative to material national interests is a recurring axis of disagreement. Assessments of the costs and benefits of American military presence abroad, economic statecraft, and multilateral engagement vary widely depending on underlying assumptions about the international system and US interests.

For extended historical background, see us-foreign-policy-history.

The following viewpoints represent distinct positions that appear with regularity in scholarly and public debate. The list is representative, not exhaustive.

• Liberal internationalism: The United States should lead and sustain the rules-based international order through alliances, multilateral institutions, and the promotion of democratic governance. Proponents argue this order benefits both US interests and global stability. See us-foreign-policy-liberal-internationalism-viewpoint.

• Restraint: The United States overextends its military and political commitments abroad, generating blowback, fiscal costs, and entanglement in conflicts peripheral to core national interests. Advocates favor retrenchment, reduced forward military presence, and selective engagement. See US Foreign Policy - Restraint Viewpoint.

• Primacy / Hegemonic stability: Sustained US military and economic preponderance is a precondition for international order and deterrence of major-power conflict. Advocates support robust defense spending, forward deployment, and active management of regional balances. See us-foreign-policy-primacy-viewpoint.

• Realism / Offshore balancing: US policy should prioritize the balance of power in key regions and avoid costly nation-building or democratization projects. The United States should act as an offshore balancer, intervening only when a regional hegemon threatens to emerge. See us-foreign-policy-realism-viewpoint.

• Progressive / Post-liberal critique: US foreign policy reproduces structures of inequality, militarism, and imperial power that harm populations abroad and distort domestic priorities. Advocates call for demilitarization, multilateral redistribution, and subordination of force to international legal norms. See us-foreign-policy-progressive-viewpoint.

• America First / Nationalist: US foreign policy should prioritize the direct, near-term material interests of American citizens over alliance obligations, multilateral commitments, or global governance agendas. See us-foreign-policy-america-first-viewpoint.

• NATO expansion debate: The decision to expand NATO eastward following the Cold War, and its relationship to subsequent tensions with Russia, has generated sustained scholarly and policy controversy. See nato-expansion-debate-controversy.

• Iraq War rationale: The evidentiary basis and legal justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq remain subjects of documented dispute among governments, international institutions, and independent investigators. See us-foreign-policy-iraq-war-rationale-controversy.

• US drone strike program: The legal authority, civilian casualty accounting, and strategic efficacy of targeted killing operations outside declared war zones have been contested by human rights bodies, legal scholars, and oversight institutions. See us-foreign-policy-drone-strikes-controversy.

• Foreign surveillance and allied trust: Revelations beginning in 2013 regarding NSA surveillance of allied leaders and populations damaged US diplomatic relationships and provoked formal diplomatic protests and legislative inquiries in several allied states. See us-foreign-policy-nsa-surveillance-controversy.

History

• us-foreign-policy-history

Debates

• NATO and U.S. Commitment - Debate
• Transatlantic Relations - Debate
• NATO Expansion - Debate

Viewpoint Debates

• nato-us-indispensable-viewpoint-debate
• nato-opposition-viewpoint-debate
• nato-retrenchment-viewpoint-debate

Viewpoints

• US Foreign Policy - Restraint Viewpoint
• NATO - Retrenchment Viewpoint
• NATO - Opposition Viewpoint
• NATO and U.S. Commitment - U.S. as Indispensable Partner Viewpoint

Related Main Topics

• NATO
• Transatlantic Relations
• us-foreign-policy-history

1. John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of American National Security Policy during the Cold War, rev. ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). 2. Barry R. Posen, Restraint: A New Foundation for U.S. Grand Strategy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2014). 3. Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth, America Abroad: The United States' Global Role in the 21st Century (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016). 4. John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, “The Case for Offshore Balancing,” Foreign Affairs 95, no. 4 (July/August 2016): 70-83. 5. Hal Brands, American Grand Strategy in the Age of Trump (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2018). 6. Melvin P. Leffler and Jeffrey W. Legro, eds., In Uncertain Times: American Foreign Policy after the Berlin Wall and 9/11 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2011).