Trump’s Disruption of the World Order and Different Historical Phases of “American Imperialism”

Recently, American scholar Francis Fukuyama published an article titled The New American Imperialism, expressing deep concerns about the expansionist policies of Trump’s second administration. Fukuyama argues that Trump is leading the United States back to a 19th-century style of territorial expansion and militaristic empire-building.

Such concerns are justified. However, “American imperialism” has existed since the early 19th century and has never disappeared. It has merely taken different forms and characteristics in different historical periods.

The term imperialism in political and international relations refers to a powerful and aggressive country that expands its territory, oppresses other nations, and dominates regional or global order as a means of survival and growth. From ancient empires like Rome, Qin, and the Mongol Empire to modern imperial powers such as Britain, France, Germany, the United States, Russia, and Japan, all have exhibited these traits.

The United States embarked on the path of imperialism only decades after its independence. With no rivaling forces nearby and vast lands unclaimed by European powers, American expansion was relatively easy and involved little bloodshed. The nearly century-long Westward Expansion transformed the U.S. from its original thirteen states into the vast territory it occupies today. Some of this land was acquired through purchase (e.g., the Louisiana Purchase), while others were annexed through coercion and force (e.g., Texas). The land, resources, and population gained from this expansion laid the foundation for America’s eventual global dominance.

At the time, the U.S. justified its expansion with the ideology of Manifest Destiny, rooted in racial superiority and religious beliefs. In reality, the true motivation was territorial conquest and North American dominance. The enormous benefits for the nation and its citizens provided a powerful incentive for expansion. By purchasing European colonial lands at low prices, seizing Native American lands, and occupying foreign territories, the predominantly European-descended U.S. population dramatically increased its living space and accumulated vast resources and wealth. This early phase of American imperialism exhibited classic imperialist characteristics.

During this period, American imperialism primarily focused on establishing hegemony over North America. By the 1820s, the U.S. had begun to exert influence in South America, gradually turning Latin America—including the remaining parts of North America outside the U.S. and Canada, Central America (e.g., El Salvador), and South America (e.g., Brazil)—into its “backyard,” a source of raw materials and a market for American goods. While Canada never became a de facto colony, it remained in America’s shadow, with its foreign policies often aligning with those of the U.S., whether by choice or necessity.

However, outside the Americas, in regions such as Europe and Africa, the U.S. adopted a non-interventionist stance, securing British, French, and German recognition of its monopoly over the Western Hemisphere. In Asia, America sought a share of the spoils, participating in attacks on the isolationist Qing Empire alongside Britain, France, Germany, and Japan. This forced China to open its doors under the Open Door Policy and ensured equal opportunities for foreign powers. Nonetheless, America still largely adhered to isolationism, with most politicians and citizens preferring to stay out of global conflicts and maintain their affluent, self-sufficient homeland.

The shift from isolationism to interventionist imperialism began with the Spanish-American War and World War I. The U.S. occupied the Philippines, participated in World War I as a victorious power, and became one of the four dominant nations at the Paris Peace Conference. However, even in the interwar period and the early years of World War II, American public opinion largely favored isolationism. President Woodrow Wilson pushed for the creation of the League of Nations, but domestic opposition prevented the U.S. from joining. During the early years of World War II, despite ongoing conflicts in Europe and between China and Japan, the U.S. remained neutral, with significant domestic resistance to joining the war.

It was only after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 that the U.S. fully engaged in World War II. The post-war period saw the U.S. and the Soviet Union emerge as the two global superpowers under the Yalta System, transforming America from a regional imperialist power into an interventionist global imperialist state. The immense benefits gained from participating in and winning both world wars strengthened American support for international engagement and global leadership. The Cold War and the perceived threat of communism further made isolationism untenable, solidifying America’s interventionist imperialism.

During the Cold War, American imperialism exhibited a dual nature. On one hand, it positioned itself as the beacon of the free world, using its economic and military strength to counter the Soviet-led Eastern Bloc, protecting capitalist economies, democratic institutions, and free societies in Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, and non-communist nations. On the other hand, it exploited the Cold War and anti-communism to interfere in global affairs, propping up pro-American regimes and proxy governments that served U.S. interests. American foreign aid generated far greater returns than its costs, making imperialism highly profitable.

Furthermore, the U.S. showed little hesitation in supporting war criminals, dictators, and authoritarian regimes when it suited its interests. Whether it was sheltering Japanese war criminals after World War II, backing military dictatorships in South Korea (e.g., Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan), supporting right-wing military governments in Latin America (e.g., Pinochet in Chile), propping up African dictators (e.g., Mobutu in the Congo), or appeasing human rights-abusing allies like Saudi Arabia and interventionist allies like Israel, the U.S. consistently prioritized pragmatism over democracy and human rights.

From the end of the Cold War until the early 2010s, as the uncontested global hegemon, the U.S.—especially under Clinton and Obama—had more leeway to promote democratic values. Its advocacy for “democracy” and “human rights” carried more sincerity than before. However, even during this period, U.S. foreign policy remained primarily interest-driven. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq under Bush Jr. highlighted America’s continued imperialist nature and its reliance on military force to maintain global dominance.

Since Obama’s later years, with the rise of China and other emerging powers, the U.S. has increasingly focused on countering China and Russia. The once-sincere emphasis on human rights has once again been overshadowed by pragmatism. Trump’s first term revealed a more blatant prioritization of American interests in the Middle East, Asia-Pacific, and Latin America, with his administration openly embracing hegemony. Biden, while more focused on human rights, has largely continued Trump’s policies, preferring alliances with like-minded nations over unilateralism. The “universalist” aspect of American imperialism is fading, while its imperial nature becomes more pronounced.

In reality, the U.S. has never been the best model of political morality, social justice, or universal human rights. Compared to Norway and Sweden, it lags in social welfare and human rights. Compared to revolutionary France, it has done less to promote global equality and justice. Compared to the U.K., it has a weaker record on racial harmony. Compared to Germany, it has not confronted its historical injustices as thoroughly.

The perception of the U.S. as a beacon of freedom stems from its size, historical positioning on the relatively “right side” in key conflicts, and military-economic dominance—not from an inherent moral superiority. This empire, like all others, is a mix of noble ideals and dark realities.

Now, with Trump’s return in 2025, his actions indeed resemble 19th-century American imperialism, as Fukuyama warns. His aggressive territorial demands on Greenland, Panama, and Canada, his pressure on Mexico, and his support for right-wing regimes in Latin America mirror early American expansionism. Unlike past imperialists who used religion and “progress” as justification, Trump openly prioritizes raw power and self-interest.

If Trump follows through with his imperialist ambitions, the post-World War II international order will collapse, paving the way for greater aggression from other powers like Russia. Weak nations will become pawns and spoils of empire once more, plunging the world into a pre-WWI era of great power competition.

American imperialism is shifting toward its darker side, abandoning its former glory. This is painful to witness, yet it is the outcome of democratic choice, backed by American power, and thus difficult to resist or reverse.