The Imperial Presidency
April 4, 2025
This article is dedicated to Ethan Wong and Ryan Modafe for being the most brilliant and dedicated contributors we've had since the journal's founding.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth will visit Panama next week to meet with senior government officials of the Central American country. The visit comes as US President Donald Trump repeatedly reiterates claims of Chinese interference in the canal and threats to take it over, rationalizing that Panama is making the US pay too much for it.
The Trump administration has taken multiple steps recently in an attempt to extend US geopolitical holdings, including by sending JD Vance to Greenland. Echoing the expansionist sentiments of the antebellum period, Trump contends that his areas of interest (including the Panama Canal, Greenland, and Canada so far) would be better off under US jurisdiction and rule.
Trump’s imperialist rhetoric marks a dangerous shift from centuries of longstanding American foreign policy that favored empowering allies rather than conquering territory. Trump’s ambiguous approaches and contradictory motives leaves foreign actors baffled — a poor strategy when it comes to uniting the world as its leader.
The world benefits from a unipolar superpower because its service as a de facto world police force ensures that other countries do not have to invest heavily into defense infrastructure. Ever since his first campaign for president during the 2016 election cycle, Trump has complained about the lack of military spending by our allies. This is by design — as one of the world’s two standing superpowers following the Suez Crisis and the sole superpower after the capitulation of the Soviet Union, the United States bears the responsibility of protecting the less powerful nations of the world.
However, recent developments have demonstrated that America is not only willing to turn its back on its allies, but also bully its neighbors for concessions, as will likely occur during Hegseth’s visit to Panama. If the United States can not defend other countries and expects them to step up their military contributions, as evidenced by the leaked Signal group chat involving senior US national security officials, the only logical consequence we could expect to follow is for those countries to do so.
The repercussions of a broad weapons proliferation by estranged US allies could have unpredictable and possibly devastating consequences. Not only would a global arms race materialize from countries disillusioned by wavering US support, but nuclear weapons manufacturing and stockpiling would also become a possible outcome.
Trump’s “America First” policy agenda has no viable path to a safer future for Americans. His personalities-over-principles based approach will lead to a gradual degradation of respect among US allies and adversaries alike. Unless an unfavorable 2026 midterm election serves as a wakeup call for the president, America’s foreign policy may wade into more dire straits in the future.