Why Did Trump Shift From His America First Policy?

The concept of “America First” is not a new one in the realm of US foreign policy. The term was first made popular during World War 2 when the America First Committee was formed by Yale student Robert Douglas Stuart Jr. and US Veteran General Robert E. Wood which advocated for American neutrality and building up strength through the American people, military, and economy. The idea of reducing the US active engagement in conflict to focus on its own interests caught the attention of Donald Trump, who pursued his own version of “America First” with varying results over the course of his two nonconsecutive terms as US President.

President Trump’s application of “America First” has been inconsistent since resuming office in 2025. This past year saw a series of deviations from the concept of “America First” including assisting Israel in the 12-day war with Iran, the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, and threats towards Iran regarding regime change amid protests. These threats became realized when the US and Israel carried out an unprovoked aerial offensive against Iran, which resulted in the deaths of the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and several Iranian military officials. With the conflict still ongoing and regime change seeming to be the desired outcome, the conclusion can be made that this conflict signals a shift in President Trump’s “America First” policy. This shift will be explored through redefining “America First”, the Israel factor, and domestic support to get involved in a confrontation with Iran during a consequential election year.

During President Trump’s first term, the concept of “America First” was focused on the idea that the US should not get involved in endless wars. President Trump’s application of “America First” during his first term was seen as a rejection of the “…neoconservative, interventionist foreign policy”, and replaced with a withdrawal from the region as evidenced by the US’ withdrawal from Syria in 2019 and the proposed withdrawal from Afghanistan. This is important to understanding the shift as it shows that President Trump’s initial approach to foreign policy was one that was grounded in the US taking a step back from the international system in a bid to end the so-called “forever wars” that were viewed by the Trump administration as costly and was not in the US’ interest. It is through this application of “America First” the American electorate interpreted President Trump’s foreign policy to be isolationist and anti-interventionist.

While the perception of the initial “America First” policy can be seen as an attempt by President Trump to reduce the US involvement in the world, the argument can be made that his application of “America First” during his second term has been redefined. “America First” has shifted from being a policy grounded in not instigating “forever wars”, to using force when it suits the American interest. Already this is clearly shown through the Iran-Israel War in 2025 and the capture of Maduro in 2026. Moreover, this redefinition of “America First” is explicitly shown in the US-Israel-Iran War as individuals within the Trump administration and the Republican Party have framed the US-Israel offensive as a form of peace through strength. According to Pentagon Policy Chief Elbridge Colby “…America First and Peace Through Strength are served by rolling back, as the military campaign is designed to do, the threats posed by Iran’s very large and growing missile and one-way attack drone program, its navy and of course ensuring that it doesn’t have a nuclear weapon”.

By this logic, “America First” is redefined to incorporate Iran’s nuclear program and military capabilities as threats to US security and that it would be in the American interest to get involved in a war with Iran to secure these interests. Therefore, in the scope of the US-Israel-Iran War, President Trump’s “America First” policy is redefined and shifts from focusing on nonintervention and reducing US engagement to include the use of selective interventionism to protect the US interests and project strength abroad.

Beyond redefining “America First”, the shift in President Trump’s “America First” policy can also be explained by the US’ cooperation with Israel during this war against Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been calling for the US to attack Iran since the 1990s under the premise that Iran was in possession of nuclear weapons and posed an existential threat to Israel.

President Trump incorporates Israel into the “America First” calculus when it comes to this war with Iran, as protecting Israel as a strategic US ally in the region, which according to this redefined version of “America First” would be focusing on protecting the US foreign interest. This is clearly expressed by President Trump as he framed the initial US-Israel offensive against Iran in the historical context in that the conflict aimed at eliminating the Islamic Republic as a common threat to US-Israel interests in the region. Moreover, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed that the US attacked Iran preemptively “…after learning Israel was going to strike, which would have in turn led to retaliation against US forces.” Through President Trump and Rubio’s logic for getting involved in the offensive against Iran, protecting Israel is seen as protecting American interests in the MENA region, and therefore constitutes an “America First” strategy.

Although the collaboration with Israel is considered part of this redefined “America First” approach, there are individuals within American society that criticized President Trump’s move to incorporate Israeli interests as part of the “America First” calculus. This is clear as both anti-interventionist Republicans and some Democrats view the war as furthering Israeli interests in the region as opposed to protecting American ones. In terms of the Republican perception, former Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, an active supporter of nonintervention and critic of “forever wars” stated that the US-Israeli involvement in Iran went against “America First” and retorted that due to the Trump administration’s prioritization of Israeli regional interests, it is “…always America last…”.

Beyond independent comments relating to the addition of Israeli Interests to the “America First” calculus, it is clear there are some voices close to Vice President JD Vance that are not particularly fond of the US-Israeli venture focused on Iran. According to analysts at the European Council on Foreign Relations “Even restrainers (who want security to focus on the homeland) and prioritisers (who want an Indo-Pacific focus) in Vice President J.D Vance’s inner circle are likely not thrilled by the president’s direction.” This shows how there are individuals close to President Trump who do not agree with his inclusion of Israeli interests into the redefined “America First” approach, which could cost the US financially and damage the US credibility abroad and domestically.

Although President Trump has critics within the “America First” camp regarding the US-Israeli offensive in Iran, it also has its fair share of supporters that view the offensive fitting within the framework of “America First”. It should be noted that most of the domestic support comes from a hawkish camp within the Republican Party, who have always supported some variation of confrontation with Iran. This support for the war is clearly expressed by Republican senators in the US Congress, who recently shot down a bipartisan war powers resolution that would have required President Trump to gain congressional authorization to continue the war. Some of the more hawkish backers of President Trump have voiced their absolute support for the war, as they believe that removing the regime would lead to a more peaceful and stable MENA region while also expressing how this intervention is considered “America First”.

While President Trump received great support from the Republican controlled Congress, the same cannot be said about the American public. According to a poll by Reuters/Ipsos consisting of 1,282 people, 56% believe that the US is too willing to US excessive military force to pursue US interests.

 
Furthermore, 43% of respondents disapproved completely with the bombing of Iran.
 

Moreover, a YouGov poll shows that approximately 48% of respondents disapprove of the war, while 42% believe that the war is completely unjustified.

These statistics show that President Trump’s war is completely unpopular in the eyes of the average American, which shows there is a clear disconnect between what the people want and what the leadership of America want.

Conclusively, the domestic support primarily lies with Republicans in congressional positions or individuals closely associated with President Trump, who attempt to paint this conflict as part of “America First”. On the other hand, the American people show their disapproval of the operation as they believe that it is excessive and unjustified.

The issue that remains to be addressed is why did President Trump engage in a conflict during an election year, a conflict that deviates from his original application of “America First”? Before answering this question, it should be noted that midterm elections tend to serve as a referendum on both the sitting president as well as the president’s political party. A possible reason for President Trump to pursue a conflict during a consequential midterm year could be that the Trump administration believes it can eventually sell the conflict to the American public. This is clearly shown as President Trump’s international interventions over the last year have focused on quick and decisive action that limits long-term US involvement, which in matter of speaking fits into the new redefined calculus of “America First”.

Moreover, President Trump and his more hawkish supporters in Congress believed that the use of military strength could project the image to the American public that he has strong leadership skills and is decisive when engaging on the international scene. According to an unnamed official “Trump ultimately sided with those who believed decisive action would show him as a strong leader, even if it carried long-term risks”. Therefore, it can be argued that President Trump engaged in conflict with Iran to project the image he is a strong leader who can end conflict in a quick and decisive way.

 However, if the conflict were to persist beyond the 4–5-week timetable or become a ground offensive, it could reflect poorly on President Trump in the upcoming midterms. President Trump ran an “America First” policy that centered on ending US involvement in MENA conflicts and any prolonged fighting will damage his legacy and could dictate a shift in the domestic balance of power if this midterm election which will serve as reckoning for not only President Trump, but also the Republican establishment. Therefore, it would be in President Trump’s best interest to end the conflict quickly and return to a focus on affordability and economy, issues that the American public are highly concerned about.

Akram, Susan M., Charles W. Dunne, Amy Hawthorne, Patricia Karam, Khalil E. Jahshan, Annelle Sheline, and Kristian Coates Ulrichsen. 2026. “The US-Israel War on Iran: Analyses and Perspectives.” Arab Center Washington DC. March 2, 2026. https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/the-us-israel-war-on-iran-analyses-and-perspectives/.

Bose, Nandita, Gram Slattery, and Bo Erickson. 2026. “Trump Presses Ahead with Iran War despite Warnings of Political Risk for Midterms.” Reuters, March 2, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-presses-ahead-with-iran-war-despite-warnings-political-risk-midterms-2026-03-02/.

Bush, Daniel. 2026a. “Trump’s Bet on Iranian Regime Change Could Be His Biggest Gamble Yet.” BBC News, March 1, 2026. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn48dwm818no.

———. 2026b. “Trump’s Iran Endgame Unclear after Mixed Messaging on War Aims.” BBC News, March 2, 2026. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm214xk30vxo.

Collinson, Stephen. 2026. “How Trump’s War on Iran Could Succeed — or Go Disastrously Wrong.” CNN. March 3, 2026. https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/03/politics/analysis-trump-iran-war-outcomes.

Denean, Austin. 2026. “Iran War Sets up High-Stakes Votes for Lawmakers.” KHGI. March 4, 2026. https://nebraska.tv/news/connect-to-congress/iran-war-sets-up-high-stakes-votes-for-lawmakers-war-powers-resolution-emergency-funding-middle-east-conflict-midterms.

Elmasry, Mohamad. 2026. “The Iran Strikes Could Become a Midterm Reckoning – for Trump and Israel.” Al Jazeera. March 4, 2026. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2026/3/4/the-iran-strikes-could-become-a-midterm-reckoning-for-trump-and-israel.

Geranmayeh, Ellie, Julien Barnes-Dacey, Cinzia Bianco, Andrew Small, Jana Kobzova, Hugh Lovatt, Aslı Aydıntaşbaş, and Majda Ruge. 2026. “A War with No Winners: The Costs of US-Israeli Aggression on Iran – European Council on Foreign Relations.” ECFR. March 2, 2026. https://ecfr.eu/article/a-war-with-no-winners-the-costs-of-us-israeli-aggression-on-iran/?amp.

Gomez, Henry J, Allan Smith, and Tara Prindiville. 2026. “Trump, Who Campaigned against ‘Endless’ Wars, Enters Iran with No End Date.” NBC News. March 3, 2026. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-campaign-endless-wars-iran-no-end-date-rcna261323.

Granger, Lindsey. 2026. “Trump Shifting Goals, Expectations for Iran War: Dangerous!” The Hill. March 3, 2026. https://thehill.com/opinion/lindseys-lens/5765250-trump-iran-war-uncertainty/.

Lange, Jason. 2026. “Just One in Four Americans Supports US Strikes on Iran, Reuters/Ipsos Poll Finds.” Reuters, March 1, 2026. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/just-one-four-americans-support-us-strikes-iran-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2026-03-01/.

Lee, Chantelle, and Miranda Jeyaretnam. 2026. “How Americans Feel about Trump’s War with Iran, according to the Latest Polls.” TIME. Time. March 4, 2026. https://time.com/7382231/iran-us-israel-war-support-polling-trump-republicans-democrats/.

Lemire, Jonathan, Toluse Olorunnipa, and Ashley Parker. 2026. “The Atlantic.” The Atlantic. theatlantic. March 2, 2026. https://www.theatlantic.com/national-security/2026/03/iran-us-war-maga/686206/.

Melimopoulos, Elizabeth. 2026. “Iran War: What Is Happening on Day Six of US-Israel Attacks?” Al Jazeera. March 5, 2026. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/5/iran-war-what-is-happening-on-day-six-of-us-israel-attacks.

Montgomery, David. 2026. “How Americans Feel about the U.S. Attack on Iran.” Yougov.com. March 3, 2026. https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/54201-how-americans-feel-about-the-us-attack-on-iran.

Rothman, Lily. 2016. “The Long History behind Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ Foreign Policy.” Time. Time. March 29, 2016. https://time.com/4273812/america-first-donald-trump-history/.

Satloff, Robert. 2026. “The Long, Sad History of U.S. Regime Change Promises.” The Washington Institute. March 2, 2026. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/long-sad-history-us-regime-change-promises.

The White House. 2026. “Peace through Strength: President Trump Launches Operation Epic Fury to Crush Iranian Regime, End Nuclear Threat.” The White House. March 1, 2026. https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2026/03/peace-through-strength-president-trump-launches-operation-epic-fury-to-crush-iranian-regime-end-nuclear-threat/.

YouGov. 2026. “Do You Think the U.S. Attacks on Iran Are Justified or Not Justified? | Daily Question.” Yougov.com. March 2, 2026. https://yougov.com/en-us/daily-results/20260302-7d911-2.