On Monday, the Civil Discourse Initiative (“CDI”) convened students for a wide-ranging discussion on American foreign policy, posing a central question: Is the United States still a global leader, or has it become a global liability?
The panel, titled “Leadership or Liability?”, featured three student speakers: Josh Hawkins, a second-year economics student, writer for the Undergraduate Law Review, and member of the Cavalier Editorial Board; Ben Bressette, a fourth-year political and social thought major, Spanish minor and member of the Washington Society; and Will Hickey, a third-year history major, member of the Jefferson Society and CDI, and writer for The Jefferson Independent. The discussion was moderated by CDI Vice President Marty Dwyer and drew students interested in contemporary foreign policy, particularly under President Donald Trump’s second administration.
Dwyer opened the discussion by asking panelists to characterize the current international posture of the United States. While panelists broadly agreed that US foreign policy has long involved power projection abroad, they disagreed over how to interpret its present form. Bressette argued that recent foreign policy reflects a more explicit continuation of longstanding imperial practices. He said that what distinguishes the current moment is that “the veneer of respectability is entirely gone,” resulting in a more aggressive expression of policies that had previously been justified through appeals to human rights or liberal international norms, such as the US-led intervention in Libya in 2011.
Other panelists offered more qualified assessments. Hickey argued that while the United States has demonstrated expansionist tendencies throughout its history, the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries saw a greater reliance on soft power. According to Hickey, recent developments signal a return to more overt expansionism. Hawkins similarly acknowledged historical expansionism but contended that the Trump administration represents a departure from post–WWII liberal internationalism, marked by more direct and visible assertions of power.
A recurring theme throughout the evening was unpredictability. Panelists noted that Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric frequently diverges from his actions — complicating efforts to identify a coherent doctrine. Hickey expressed hesitation in assigning a consistent framework to Trump’s decisions, describing the president as being “in five places at once.” Hawkins echoed this view, characterizing Trump as “malleable” and arguing that his decisions are often shaped by advisers and shifting political incentives rather than a stable ideological vision.
The panel devoted significant attention to recent flashpoints, including US actions involving Greenland and Venezuela. Trump’s renewed interest in acquiring Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark and a NATO ally, prompted debate over alliance stability and American credibility. Some panelists warned that such rhetoric risks alienating European partners and weakening NATO, while others suggested that fears of a lasting rupture were overstated and more reflective of Trump’s negotiating style than of enduring US policy.
The US operation in Venezuela this January — which resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro — generated some of the most pointed disagreements. Panelists debated the legality and morality of the operation, with all expressing skepticism toward international law’s effectiveness in constraining powerful states. Bressette described the operation as an “egregious violation of national sovereignty.” Hawkins, by contrast, praised its efficiency and deterrent value, stating that he sleeps “better at night knowing that our military can do something like that.” Hickey criticized the operation’s execution, warning that it reinforced global instability and represented “the worst of both worlds.”
Iran also featured prominently in the discussion. Panelists diverged over whether the United States should intervene more forcefully in response to protests and nuclear developments. Hawkins argued that American credibility depends on enforcing declared red lines and applying pressure to authoritarian regimes. Hickey disagreed, asserting that Iran’s instability suggests an eventual regime change but expressing distrust in the ability of either the United States or Trump to pursue effective intervention. Bressette cautioned that intervention could repeat past failures in the Middle East, citing US involvement in Iran during the 1950s and arguing that “the best thing for the US to do is to stay out of it.”
As the discussion turned to broader implications, panelists revisited the meaning of “America First.” Some argued that Trump’s actions reflect a realist strategy aimed at advancing US interests abroad rather than isolationism. Others countered that many decisions appear driven by personal political incentives rather than a coherent conception of national interest.
In closing, panelists offered contrasting responses to the panel’s central question. One described the United States as an undeniable global leader that shapes international norms primarily to preserve its own hegemony. Another suggested that American leadership remains influential but increasingly contested as other powers respond to perceived unilateralism. A third argued that while the United States continues to lead, certain actions risk turning leadership into liability when they strain alliances or erode global trust. When asked how European leaders should engage with Trump, panelists generally recommended a pragmatic approach that balances conciliatory rhetoric with long-term strategic priorities, emphasizing the temporary nature of any single administration.
The event concluded with a brief Q&A session. One audience member asked about the panelists’ views on Venezuelans who view the Maduro operation positively. Hickey responded that such perspectives “should not govern US policy” but warrant respect. Hawkins agreed, adding that he hopes the Venezuelan people will ultimately topple the regime. Bressette argued that prior US involvement contributed to Venezuela’s current conditions and suggested that some migrants may overattribute their suffering solely to Maduro rather than to broader economic circumstances. A brief exchange between the two panelists followed, with Hawkins calling it “a little arrogant” to label those perspectives as misinformed. Bressette replied that he had “nothing to say to that.”
Dwyer concluded the event by emphasizing that despite disagreement, the panelists shared a desire for outcomes that benefit both the American people and the broader global community, adding that “we can go forth knowing we have that in common.”
Leave a Reply