Few terms in American foreign policy discourse are as misunderstood or politically charged as “isolationism.”

Often used as a political weapon, the term conjures images of a retreating America, indifferent to global challenges.

However, the reality is more complex. For example, some commentators argue that President Donald Trump’s return to the White House signals a new era of isolationism. But others contend his foreign policy is more akin to “sovereigntism,” which prioritizes national autonomy and decision-making free from external constraints, and advocates for international engagement only when it directly serves a nation’s interests.

Understanding isolationism’s role in U.S. policy requires a closer look at its historical roots and political usage.

The idea of avoiding foreign entanglements has been a part of American strategic thinking since the country’s founding. President George Washington’s famous warning against “entangling alliances” reflected a desire to insulate the young republic from European conflicts.

Throughout the 19th century, this sentiment shaped U.S. policy, though not exclusively. The country expanded its influence in the Western Hemisphere, maintained strong economic ties abroad and occasionally intervened in regional affairs.

This cautious approach allowed the U.S. to develop its economy and military strength without becoming deeply embroiled in European rivalries.

After World War I, isolationism became more pronounced. The staggering human and financial costs of the war led many Americans to question deep international involvement. Skepticism toward President Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations reinforced this sentiment, and in the 1930s, the U.S. passed Neutrality Acts designed to keep the country out of foreign wars. However, this approach proved unsustainable.

Though getting increasingly involved in the European conflict in the years before the attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, that day officially led the U.S. into World War II, marking the definitive end of traditional isolationism. With the war’s conclusion, American strategic thinking shifted, recognizing that even partial disengagement was no longer an option in a globalized world.

In the postwar era, isolationism devolved from a coherent strategic perspective into a term of political derision. During the Cold War, those who opposed military alliances like NATO or U.S. interventions in Korea and Vietnam were often dismissed as isolationists, regardless of their actual policy preferences.

This framing marginalized critics of U.S. global engagement, even when their concerns were grounded in strategic prudence rather than a reflexive desire to withdraw from the world.

The same pattern persisted going into the 21st century. In debates over U.S. involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine, critics of expansive military commitments were frequently labeled isolationists, despite advocating for a recalibration of foreign policy rather than outright disengagement.

Many of those calling for an end to America’s “forever wars” did not argue for global retreat but for a prioritization of national interests over the broad defense of the so-called rules-based international order.

A persistent myth is that isolationism represents a total disengagement from the world. Historically, even during its peak, isolationism in the U.S. was never absolute. Trade, diplomacy and cultural exchanges continued even in periods marked by reluctance to intervene militarily. What critics of interventionism have historically sought is prudence in foreign affairs – avoiding unnecessary wars while ensuring the protection of core national interests.

In recent years, “restraint” has gained traction as a more precise and useful framework for U.S. foreign policy. Unlike isolationism, restraint does not imply withdrawal from global affairs but rather advocates a more selective and strategic approach.

Proponents argue that the U.S. should avoid unnecessary wars, focus on core national interests and work with its allies to maintain stability rather than relying on unilateral military action. This perspective acknowledges the limits of American power and the risks of overextension while still recognizing the necessity of international engagement. Advocates of restraint suggest that recalibrating U.S. foreign policy would allow the country to address pressing domestic concerns while maintaining a strong international presence where it matters most.

As the U.S. reassesses decades of intervention, restraint offers a middle path between disengagement and unrestrained global activism. It encourages a more thoughtful and sustainable approach to foreign policy that prioritizes long-term stability and national interests over automatic involvement in conflicts.

Moving beyond the outdated and politically charged debate over isolationism would, I believe, allow for a more productive conversation about how the U.S. can engage globally in a way that is both effective and aligned with its strategic interests.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Andrew Latham, Macalester College

Read more:
In siding with Russia over Ukraine, Trump is not putting America first. He is hastening its decline

What Trump’s return might mean for Europe, and how it’s starting to prepare for the challenges

America’s designs on annexing Canada have a long history − and record of political failures

Andrew Latham does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.