Stephen Walt labels President Trump’s foreign policy as "predatory hegemony," warning it could weaken the global networks that give the U.S. leverage and may trigger a swift backlash. Richard Fontaine says a recent strike reflects a new approach to war—launched without national consensus, ground forces, or a clear objective—trading traditional assurances for presidential flexibility. Critics worry that such trade-offs risk strategic erosion over time.
Predatory Hegemony: How Trump’s New Warfare Posture Could Erode U.S. Influence
Stephen Walt, writing in Foreign Affairs, characterizes President Trump’s foreign policy as "predatory hegemony," arguing that treating U.S. power in a predatory way risks weakening the international networks of influence Washington has long relied on. Walt warns that undermining those networks will reduce the leverage the United States historically enjoyed, and that the damage may not be immediate but could produce a rapid backlash.
Invoking Ernest Hemingway’s famous line about bankruptcy, Walt cautions that sustained predatory policies could lead U.S. global influence to decline "gradually and then suddenly." That metaphor underscores the danger of slow erosion followed by abrupt loss of standing.
Critics On The New Approach To War
Richard Fontaine, a former adviser to John McCain and now president of the Center for a New American Security, describes a recent strike as emblematic of a different approach to warfare under the Trump administration. Fontaine notes the action was launched without efforts to build broad national consensus, lacked a ground component intended to secure overwhelming force, and operated without a clearly defined political or military objective.
He argues that by omitting those traditional elements, the administration preserved greater flexibility to adapt to unfolding events. Critics counter that while flexibility can be an asset, the absence of clear goals and public buy-in increases the risk of unintended consequences and long-term strategic drift.
Walt: "A consistent policy of predatory hegemony could cause U.S. global influence to decline 'gradually and then suddenly.'"
This debate highlights a central tension in contemporary U.S. strategy: the trade-off between short-term operational flexibility and the long-term maintenance of alliances, credibility, and influence that underpin global leadership.
Help us improve.
