What are  the potential global consequences if the United States abandons its role of maintaining a liberal world order? This scenario denotes a shift from 80 years of American strategy. Donald Trump’s presidency marked a move towards this notion with his “America first” platform, emphasizing minimal global entanglements and prioritizing U.S. interests. Trump’s perspective is gaining traction within the Republican Party, and bipartisan weariness with globalism suggests this shift could happen under future leaders. A more self-interested U.S. would likely be more aggressive on certain issues but less inclined to uphold global norms, provide public goods, or protect distant allies, focusing instead on power without the same sense of responsibility. While such a strategy may benefit the U.S. temporarily, it could lead to increased global chaos and conflict, adversely affecting vulnerable states. Historically, U.S. foreign policy has been driven by a broad, responsible view of national interest, emphasizing global stability and cooperation. The shift to a narrower, self-serving strategy represents a serious departure from this approach, with potentially deleterious effects on global order and peace. Since 1945, American leadership has fostered global growth, security, and the spread of democracy. Despite this success, there has always been skepticism about maintaining this global order indefinitely. Initially driven by unique post-war conditions, U.S. foreign policy aimed at preventing further global conflicts. However, more recent trends indicate a shift towards a less interventionist approach. This shift is epitomized by Trump’s “America First” agenda, which questions the need for the U.S. to defend distant states and uphold global liberal norms. Instead, it favors a more conventional focus on direct American interests, reducing commitments to global alliances and liberal order maintenance. This approach could lead to a more protectionist and transactional U.S. foreign policy, less concerned with promoting democracy and more focused on economic advantages and homeland defense. If applied consistently, “America First” would reshape U.S. relations with rival powers, encouraging friction primarily over direct threats rather than ideological conflicts. The U.S. would remain a dominant power, particularly in the Western Hemisphere, but its role on the global stage would be more self-centered and less liberal. The critique of the “America first” policy highlights its potential consequences for global stability. Historically, American leadership has played an essential role in maintaining global order, preventing conflicts, and countering autocratic powers. Despite a decline in relative power compared to its peak in 1945 or 1991, the United States still underpins much of the current geopolitical stability, as evidenced by its support for Ukraine against Russia and its crucial role in NATO, Asia, and the Middle East. Advocates of American retrenchment believe that it will encourage other nations to step up, but critics argue that this vacuum would likely be filled by aggressive states like Russia and China. This shift could lead to increased instability in regions such as Eastern Europe and the South China Sea, undermine international norms, and escalate arms races, possibly even nuclear proliferation. For the United States, a retreat from its leadership role might not immediately jeopardize its security, due to its strong geopolitical position and economic advantages. However, the resulting global instability could cause economic disruptions that would also affect the U.S., although it might still fare better than other nations. The overall assessment is that “America first” could lead to a more chaotic and dangerous world, even if the U.S. itself remains relatively insulated from the immediate fallout. American power supports the current global order, ensuring stability in Europe and East Asia. If the United States retrenched, countries would face increased defense costs and regional rivalries. European and Asian nations would suffer from disrupted Middle Eastern trade routes, and even China, reliant on foreign trade, would be harmed. The U.S. would eventually face economic and diplomatic coercion from a dominant China and deteriorating global conditions. Historically, the U.S. has reengaged globally from weaker positions after prolonged isolation. “America first” policies might temporarily shield the U.S., but long-term consequences would affect it and other nations adversely. Original text by Hal Brands, published in-> ForeignAffairs

Carrie Filipetti quien fuera subsecretaria de Estado de EE.UU. para Venezuela y Cuba en entrevista que le hiciera Ángel Bermúdez, para la BBC, revisa la actuación de la administración Trump y la contrasta con la de Biden. En este sentido, advierte que una política incremental como la actual no va a dar resultados, en especial pues el régimen de Maduro puede adaptarse. En cuanto a la política de Trump afirmó, entre otras cosas, que ‘se tuvo demasiada confianza en que los jefes militares de Venezuela iban a hacer algo para sacar a Maduro” Lea la entrevista -> BBCmundo

︎For English text, use Google’s translator at the bottom ︎

He pointed specifically to the last year of the Trump administration, saying that his memoir also tells “the story about things we prevented.” “Really bad things. Dangerous things that could have taken the country in a dark direction,” Esper said.  In response to O’Donnell’s question about what he prevented, Esper recalled the various proposals raised during Trump’s last year in office. According to Esper, these ideas included “proposing to take military action against Venezuela” and a possible strike on Iran. By Cheryl Teh. Full Text -> Business Insider

Traducción de cortesía -> Señaló específicamente el último año de la administración Trump y dijo que sus memorias también cuentan “la historia de las cosas que prevenimos”. “Cosas realmente malas. Cosas peligrosas que podrían haber llevado al país en una dirección oscura”, dijo Esper. Ante la pregunta de O’Donnell sobre qué evitó, Esper recordó las diversas propuestas planteadas durante el último año de gobierno de Trump. Según Esper, estas ideas incluían “proponer una acción militar contra Venezuela” y un posible ataque a Irán.

“We started from the fact that it was not going to be a lasting crisis. We genuinely believed it, you can find quotes from me and from Abraham, saying: it is not a matter of years or months, it is a matter of weeks and that was obviously wrong, “he said on the Aló Buenas Noches program with Carla Angola.Filipetti revealed that they not only underestimated the Maduro regime “from the beginning,” but also the role of the Cubans, the Chinese government and the Russians in keeping Maduro in power.Full Text-> TodayIn24

Traducción de cortesía -> “Partimos de que no iba a ser una crisis duradera. Realmente lo creímos, pueden encontrar citas mías y de Abraham, diciendo: no es cuestión de años o meses, es cuestión de semanas y eso obviamente estuvo mal”, dijo en el programa Aló Buenas Noches con Carla. Angola. Filipetti reveló que no solo subestimaron “desde el principio” al régimen de Maduro, sino también el papel de los cubanos, el gobierno chino y los rusos en mantener a Maduro en el poder. To translate into Spanish -> Google Translación

Two years after the Trump administration recognized the president of the National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, as the interim president, levied oil sanctions, issued threats of military action, undermined mediation efforts, indicted Maduro and other top officials on drug charges, imposed more sanctions that restrict the population’s access to fuel, and undercut efforts to negotiate free and fair elections, Maduro is stronger than he’s ever been, and the democratic opposition movement is in pieces. Why did this maximum pressure strategy fail? By David Smilde. Full Text-> The WashigtonPost

How a yearslong battle over U.S.-Venezuela relations aided President Trump’s campaign in Florida — and left the Maduro regime standing. By Nicholas Confessore, Anatoly Kurmanaev and Kenneth P. Vogel. Full Text -> TheNewYorkTimes

The Trump administration on Sunday accused the European Union of undermining its efforts to isolate authoritarian Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, denouncing the bloc’s top diplomat for dispatching a mission to Caracas without consulting with Washington. The dispute suggested a growing divide across the Atlantic over how to handle Venezuela’s socialist government. By Anthony Faiola. Full Text-> The Washington Post

On Aug. 2, Venezuela’s diverse opposition coalition issued a bold proposal. In the face of efforts by Nicolás Maduro, who holds de facto power as a result of rigged presidental elections in 2018, to advance another rigged vote — this time for legislative elections — the coalition of 26 parties across the ideological spectrum laid out 10 key conditions. If met, the parties would consider the process free and fair. Because Maduro has failed to meet these standards, the opposition has announced it will not participate. by Geoff Ramsey. Full Text-> The Washington Post

As of December 2019, 24,451 Venezuelans were in U.S. immigration court facing removal, an increase of 277%, from 6,492 in September 2018, reports the Syracuse University Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). “Rather than make things easier for fleeing Venezuelans, the Trump administration has tightened asylum standards,” according to Miami New Times reporter Manuel Madrid, who writes that many Venezuelans consider being deported to Venezuela to be a death sentence. By Stuart Anderson. Full Text -> Forbes

Finally, one of the victims of the robberies of Venezuela’s late dictator Hugo Chavez—mining company Crystallex—is getting its day in court. But the U.S. Treasury Department is standing in its way. For the sake of property rights across the globe, the Trump administration must allow justice to be served. by Ross Marchand Daniel DiMartino. Full Text-> The National Interest