Neoroyalism: When the White House Acts Like a Royal Household

Neoroyalism is a new analytical frame proposed by political scientists Stacie Goddard and Abraham Newman to make sense of an unconventional feature of recent U.S. foreign policy: the mixing of private business, family networks and public diplomacy in ways that resemble pre-modern royal courts more than modern state bureaucracies.

What Do the Authors Mean By Neoroyalism?

Goddard and Newman suggest that some contemporary foreign-policy practices are better understood as the actions of a ruling household or clique than as the work of a neutral, impersonal state. Rather than routing diplomacy through established ministries and career diplomats, this approach channels deals through family members, close allies and private business partners, openly blending private gain and public power.

Key Patterns

• Family and Personal Networks: Important negotiations and initiatives are sometimes carried out or brokered by relatives and longtime associates operating with informal or ambiguous mandates.
• Private-Public Overlap: Business leaders and tech executives are brought into policy conversations, and investment pledges are used as leverage in negotiations.
• Hierarchy Over Sovereignty: Officials project a pecking order among states—treating some partners as junior or negotiable rather than equal sovereigns.
• Lavish Symbolism: Gifts, grand gestures and regal imagery play an outsized role in signaling status and influence.

Illustrative Examples

Media coverage has highlighted episodes that fit this pattern: private peace proposals circulated by intermediaries outside formal channels; highly publicized gifts and symbolic items presented during state visits; business deals and investment pledges intertwined with trade negotiations; and public suggestions—some serious, some jocular—about buying or absorbing territories that function more as dominance signals than straightforward policy goals.

“It’s misleading if you think of it just as corruption or just a degenerate category of neoliberalism,” Newman has said. “It’s an entirely different system of how actors distribute power amongst themselves.”

How This Differs From Other Critiques

Neoroyalism is distinct from simple accusations of corruption or authoritarianism: it focuses on the structure and practice of governance and diplomacy. The concern is institutional: practices that begin as personalized shortcuts can become normalized, creating durable infrastructures—data centers, preferential contracts, defense sales and trade arrangements—that are difficult to unwind.

Risks and Global Consequences

When a powerful state acts in this way, the effects can ripple outward. Other governments may adapt by seeking direct access to the leader or by offering investments and gifts rather than engaging formal institutions. Over time, such behavior can reshape expectations about how international bargains are struck and who benefits.

Where Might This Lead?

Goddard and Newman warn that succession is a potential flashpoint: a system organized around personal networks and clientelist practices can be fragile and may produce instability when leadership changes. Whether these practices will be rolled back, institutionalized, or provoke international tensions remains an open question—and one that calls for attention from scholars and policymakers alike.

Bottom line: Neoroyalism does not claim the United States has become a monarchy. Rather, it offers a lens for understanding a set of diplomatic behaviors—mixing family, private interests and state power—that could have long-term consequences for global norms if they become entrenched.