Libertarians have traditionally favored a reduced U.S. role abroad. Austin Padgett argues that President Trump’s foreign policy is moving in that direction.
Nick Freitas describes libertarian foreign policy as non-interventionist rather than isolationist: countries can trade and cooperate, he says, but the United States need not get involved when its security is not seriously at stake.
Padgett says libertarians sometimes debate foreign policy as though they could still decide whether to establish institutions that already exist. “We’re not debating in 1913,” he says, making a similar point about America’s overseas security role.
He argues that a far-reaching military presence can create dependence. When one government assumes responsibility for another country’s security, Padgett says, that country may come to rely on the arrangement.
In his view, pursuing libertarian goals now means taking steps like those he attributes to Trump: encouraging allies to spend more on their own defense. Padgett points to Japan’s military expansion and increased European defense funding, and says weakening Iran could allow Israel and Saudi Arabia to manage regional security more independently.
Padgett warns that withdrawing from the Middle East could be harder if Iran had developed a stronger missile deterrent and completed its nuclear program. In that situation, he says, Iran could have a reason to preserve a lasting regional balance of power.
Freitas says the challenge is finding a way to reduce U.S. involvement while maintaining enough stability for trade and other constructive relationships to continue. He adds that, even if Trump falls short of some libertarians’ ideals, his willingness to deal with existing realities may make him better positioned to advance libertarian aims than a more doctrinaire candidate.
