Donald Trump’s political adversaries have long contended that he is a danger to democracy both at home and abroad. The alleged threat that he poses domestically is symbolized by the riot his supporters waged at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Opponents denounce Trump’s foreign policy views both for being “isolationist” and overly sympathetic to autocrats around the world. Trump’s mere willingness to interact with the latter individuals is deemed to be sufficient evidence of his own evil inclinations.

Aside from the internally contradictory aspects of the two criticisms, a key problem with the overall thesis about Trump’s alleged radicalism is that the substance of U.S. foreign policy did not change very much during his first term. Yes, his administration sometimes expressed pointed criticism of U.S. allies and security clients, especially NATO’s European members. But the dominant theme of Trump’s criticism was that those countries were not doing enough for either their own defense or the collective military missions that Washington led. His tone was sharper and more confrontational, but the content of his criticisms differed little from the complaints that previous administrations (going as far back as Dwight Eisenhower’s) had expressed about a lack of burden-sharing in the alliance.

A shift in tone rather than substance is likely to constitute the principal change during the second Trump administration. Trump’s predecessors in both Democratic and Republican administrations have strongly touted Washington’s alleged support for democracy around the world. That stance complemented America’s supposed commitment to a globalist economic system after World War II. The promiscuous use of the term “free world” was an essential component of the overall U.S. propaganda strategy.