Shadow Government

Conservative U.S. Statecraft for the 21st Century

Republicans may disagree on policy, but their principles will help the United States navigate a fragmenting world.

An American flag frames Marines and Navy sailors from the USS Bataan.
An American flag frames Marines and Navy sailors from the USS Bataan.
An American flag frames U.S. Marines and Navy sailors on the USS Bataan during their arrival to New York on May 25. Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images
By , a senior fellow at Hudson Institute.

American conservatives should be pleased. They hold a set of beliefs and assumptions that, when applied to current policy challenges, will enable the United States to navigate a difficult and complex global environment. The principles that undergird a conservative foreign policy—the primacy of liberty, national sovereignty, military power, and a realistic appreciation for the inherently competitive nature of the international landscape—have implications for a range of policy choices.

Faced with a world that is fragmenting and strained by competing political systems, conservatives can drive needed corrections in U.S. foreign policy and place the United States in a strong position for the future. Not all policy choices will derive perfectly from these principles, but policymakers should use them as a guide to make hard choices. A realistic look at the world, in turn, can help policymakers narrow the gaps between rhetoric and reality. These gaps matter: When thinking is detached from reality, it creates cynicism, reduces the chances of achieving outcomes, and lowers confidence in democracy. Conservatives have a fundamental confidence in the 246-year-old American experiment, but their idealism is tempered by a realistic understanding that the United States will always be imperfect. Perfectionism is the business of dreamers and tyrants.

Conservatives, of course, are not all in agreement. There is no “model conservative,” as the historian Russell Kirk put it, but there is a distinctly conservative way of “looking at the civil social order.” This extends to the realm of foreign policy, where conservative principles provide a framework to assess challenges and opportunities and make choices that are biased toward liberty.

American conservatives should be pleased. They hold a set of beliefs and assumptions that, when applied to current policy challenges, will enable the United States to navigate a difficult and complex global environment. The principles that undergird a conservative foreign policy—the primacy of liberty, national sovereignty, military power, and a realistic appreciation for the inherently competitive nature of the international landscape—have implications for a range of policy choices.

Faced with a world that is fragmenting and strained by competing political systems, conservatives can drive needed corrections in U.S. foreign policy and place the United States in a strong position for the future. Not all policy choices will derive perfectly from these principles, but policymakers should use them as a guide to make hard choices. A realistic look at the world, in turn, can help policymakers narrow the gaps between rhetoric and reality. These gaps matter: When thinking is detached from reality, it creates cynicism, reduces the chances of achieving outcomes, and lowers confidence in democracy. Conservatives have a fundamental confidence in the 246-year-old American experiment, but their idealism is tempered by a realistic understanding that the United States will always be imperfect. Perfectionism is the business of dreamers and tyrants.

Conservatives, of course, are not all in agreement. There is no “model conservative,” as the historian Russell Kirk put it, but there is a distinctly conservative way of “looking at the civil social order.” This extends to the realm of foreign policy, where conservative principles provide a framework to assess challenges and opportunities and make choices that are biased toward liberty.


A student does steel work in Ohio.
A student does steel work in Ohio.

A student works at a bench during an industrial apprenticeship in Dayton, Ohio, on Oct. 24. MEGAN JELINGER/AFP via Getty Images

There are four principles driving conservative foreign policy.

First, the belief in liberty lies at the core of conservative foreign policy because it offers a necessary skepticism about the encroaching nature of power and is a corrective to unrestrained and unaccountable government. At home, conservatives therefore prefer solutions that begin at the local level. In international politics, this translates into a bias toward national and regional solutions as opposed to global or supranational ones. It’s the principle of subsidiarity—a larger entity shouldn’t do what a smaller one can do just as well or better. A critical aspect of liberty is economic freedom; conservatives know that no country has prospered that has not moved toward greater economic freedom.

Second, a respect for national sovereignty is central to the preservation of liberty and maintenance of a stable international order. After World War II, the key institutions that formed the bedrock of the liberal international order all acknowledged that state sovereignty was inviolable and essential to peace and prosperity. The sovereign equality of nations is enshrined in the founding charter of the United Nations. Conservatives believe that individual states remain the best way of providing agency and order. Democracy without national sovereignty is impossible.

Third, an understanding that the international landscape is competitive—and will remain so—is fundamental for conservative realists. As the 2017 U.S. National Security Strategy noted, a “central continuity in history is the contest for power.” Many foreign-policy commentators—especially the liberal internationalists—recoil at this framing. “To many in the modern world, the word power has an unpleasant ring,” wrote the historian Donald Kagan. But the reality is that there are still competing political and economic systems and divergent views on how countries order the lives of their citizens.

Fourth, a strong U.S. military is necessary to prevail against these competing systems, defend U.S. interests, and project power. Not because the United States seeks to wage war, but because a strong military is necessary to preserving peace. Military power is also a necessary foundation for other forms of influence and statecraft.

These four principles—liberty, sovereignty, competition, and power—undergird the architecture of a conservative realist strategy. The overall goal of such a strategy is to preserve U.S. power so that Americans can safeguard their national economic and political interests, check those who seek instability and domination, and keep the peace.


Today, we see a world that is fragmenting politically, economically, militarily, and technologically. Conservatives are better positioned to deal with these forces of change because their assumptions and principles are better aligned with the way the world actually works. They do not assume that global political convergence is inevitable—or even possible. In the euphoria of the so-called Unipolar Moment, U.S. leaders, basking in the triumph of liberal democracy, abandoned many of the principles that had made the country successful in the first place. These principles are a part of the U.S. conservative tradition and the basis for a strategic mindset.

Strategy starts at home, of course, and the safety and well-being of the American people must take precedence. But this does not mean conservatives should adopt a Fortress America mindset. As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, spiking energy prices, and widespread supply-chain disruptions demonstrate, the United States must engage with the world for the simple reason that Americans are personally affected by geopolitical events and other things happening across the globe.

Authoritarian states such as China are actively working to undermine U.S. interests. While the United States no longer enjoys the same preponderance of power as in the past, its strengths remain considerable. Used wisely, this strength can influence geopolitical developments in ways that favor U.S. interests.

Rep. Victoria Spartz, R-Ind., and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., after a news conference on Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Rep. Victoria Spartz, R-Ind., and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., after a news conference on Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Rep. Victoria Spartz and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy leave a news conference where Spartz, a Ukrainian-born American, spoke out against the Russian invasion, in Washington on March 1. Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images

A conservative national security strategy would embody the principles outlined to build a policy architecture along four lines of statecraft: diplomatic, economic, military, and technological.

1. Conservative diplomatic statecraft should work to catalyze positive political alignments around the world. This does not mean leading with military power or imposing U.S. values. It means working with local actors who, in turn, create the foundations for these alignments. The more friends and allies the United States has, the better. This contributes to growing a sphere of stability, diminishes the resources and choices available to rivals, and sustains an international order that helps preserve U.S. power.

Some conservative isolationists reflexively equate U.S. engagement abroad with forever wars that promote democracy. This view presumes that the United States’ default position is to impose its values on others and ignores the fact that millions around the world aspire to live better lives.

There is no reason the United States should not offer support to those who aspire to freedom and prosperity—so long as it does not harm U.S. strategic interests. Support for grassroots movements seeking liberty is neither cultural aggression nor militarism. At the same time, there will be many instances when U.S. strategic interests require temporary cooperation with regimes that are less supportive of freedom than Americans might like.

Sovereignty is worth protecting, particularly against infringement by global multilateral institutions.

Sovereignty is worth protecting, particularly against infringement by global multilateral institutions. Conservatives rightly approach international organizations with a healthy dose of skepticism: Many international institutions have had a decidedly mixed record of dealing with critical global problems, from migration to climate change to COVID-19. Although the United States should still act with like-minded countries to address shared challenges, it should not bestow on unaccountable organizations what is within the proper authority of elected governments.

Regional balances of power that favor the United States and its allies and partners are the building blocks of maintaining a global balance that is favorable to U.S. interests and values. In this new era of deglobalization, region-specific policies will be critical to U.S. success, rather than global, one-size-fits-all policies.

Sustaining regional balances in the Indo-Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East will require cooperation with allies and partners—and their active participation. Every president since Ronald Reagan has consistently called upon our allies to do more. Conservatives must make clear that allies and partners need to devote resources to their own defense and should advocate the deployment of military power only if local actors are invested as well. Allies such as Taiwan, Japan, and Germany need to increase their commitments to their own defense. It is the resolve of local actors that matter.

Not being beholden to multinational organizations for the sake of it, conservatives can focus on building coalitions that solve problems more quickly—not least because the solutions to many problems, such as carbon emissions, must begin at the local and regional levels.

2. Conservative economic statecraft should grow the United States’ advantages, avoid empowering its adversaries, and create a sphere of prosperity for like-minded countries. Keeping its place at the frontier of innovation requires the United States not only to preserve the free-market system at home, but also to structure international economic policy to cultivate U.S. advantages.

Most important, the U.S. government must ensure a strong, innovative domestic manufacturing base in sectors critical to national security. Offshoring in a relentless drive to maximize efficiency, as U.S. companies have done in the past 30 years, means that the United States today lacks the firms and labor force in key manufacturing sectors, such as semiconductors. Rectifying this requires a commitment to expanding the number of science and engineering students in the United States, promoting skills-based immigration, and providing adequate resources for research and development. Washington should also prevent adversaries from reaping the benefits of U.S. innovation. U.S. technology companies should not be supporting research centers in China to develop artificial intelligence and other capabilities.

Conservatives should insist on genuine reciprocity in trade agreements, not only among friends but also vis-à-vis adversaries. Revisionist powers should have their access to the free world’s economies strictly regulated. Sanctioned Chinese firms and those connected to Beijing’s military and intelligence services should be banned from Western equity and debt markets. U.S. investors should not be funding their country’s adversaries—not even through third-country markets. There is also a consensus across the political spectrum that supply chains should be restructured to avoid dangerous dependence on rivals such as China. Diversification improves resilience: The entire world should not depend on microchip factories concentrated in Taiwan.

Some conservatives will warn against crossing the line into industrial policy, which will not only undermine efficiency but also lead to rent-seeking by interest groups. These debates aren’t new. During the 1980s, the Reagan administration intervened to protect the U.S. semiconductor industry from competition with Japan. Reagan was right to recognize the need to balance markets and national security.

The ideal would be a federal government that catalyzed and set favorable conditions without concentrating power. It’s a hard balance to strike, but a conservative approach to industrial policy might be guided by the following principles.

The ideal would be a federal government that catalyzed and set favorable conditions without concentrating power.

First, it should enable competitive and efficient markets domestically. The United States needs to cut regulations to allow infrastructure, new mines, and industrial facilities to move forward more quickly. It can take well over a decade to initiate and complete complex projects.

Second, government agencies need better data and information about key sectors, especially dauntingly complex ones like semiconductors. These days, there are hedge funds with better economic data than the U.S. government.

Third, conservatives should emphasize state-level approaches. While the federal government can provide strategic focus, it is at the state and local levels where new facilities will be built and incentives can be directed. Fourth, national security considerations must override economic efficiency. U.S. policymakers need to identify sectors crucial to military and economic security and preserve or build domestic capability, even if that requires tariffs, domestic sourcing regulations, or other market interventions. The playing field is not level.

Abroad, the United States should pursue policies that expand the freedom of Americans to participate in the international marketplace. To this end, conservatives should catalyze the growth of a sphere of prosperity encompassing the United States and its allies and partners.

After the Cold War, U.S. policymakers pressed for global economic openness, exemplified by the World Trade Organization. With the rise of revisionist powers such as China and Russia, this approach must now give way to developing an exclusive sphere for economic engagement among the countries of the free world, centered on the industrial democracies. Others would be encouraged to adopt the values and institutions that would qualify them for membership.

A conservative approach also offers opportunities to develop a more realistic climate policy, whose current version endangers prosperity and contributes to energy crises at home and abroad, which in turn weaken economies even more. The United States should not impose its domestic climate agendas on developing countries. Conservative realists should take their cues from Nigerian Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, who has explained that the energy transition is “multidimensional” and must take “into account the different realities of various economies.” Conservatives are well positioned to advance a climate agenda consistent with economic prosperity and growth, grounded in local and regional approaches and able to reduce carbon emissions in a realistic time frame.

3. Conservative military statecraft is based on a long and healthy tradition of supporting a strong military, which requires predictable defense budgets and the activities and capabilities required to maintain regional balances of power. This includes maintaining a forward presence abroad of sufficient scale and capability to deter conflict. These broad objectives do not mean that military power is a tool of first resort—rather, they represent an understanding that military power is a necessary foundation for keeping the peace and undergirding other forms of U.S. influence and statecraft.

Predictable defense budgets are especially important as inflation soars. The 2023 increase of roughly 4 percent is below inflation, which translates into a significant budget cut in real terms. This, in turn, means reduced readiness and less room to procure equipment—something the administration has neglected for two consecutive budget cycles.

Some conservatives (and liberals) allege that there is a trade-off between spending on Americans at home and on defense. This is a strawman. There is no correlation between a reduced U.S. role in the world and, for example, better schools, health care, or infrastructure. The weakness of domestic institutions is typically not about money. Conservatives know that these problems are due to flawed policy choices, stultifying regulations, and bureaucracies that stifle innovation and penalize risk-taking. The United States can both deter external threats and improve its citizens’ quality of life.

Conservative policymakers should be critics when needed and pressure the Defense Department to focus on actual defense needs—not the many unrelated items that creep into the National Defense Authorization Act each year. White House priorities on climate change—including forcing the military services to develop utopian schemes to operate with renewable energy—distract from military priorities and force trade-offs in mission-critical programs like equipment procurement and training. The role of the military is not to fight climate change but to deter and defeat enemies.

Conservatives must also stand behind a military that is apolitical and operates apart from partisan culture wars, focusing on recruiting the men and women who want to serve the country and the U.S. Constitution.

Conservatives, with their focus on free enterprise, must also demand results when it comes to the Defense Department’s perpetually sclerotic relationship with defense companies tasked with providing our military with the innovations it needs.

Conservative policymakers should  pressure the Defense Department to focus on actual defense needs—not the many unrelated items that creep into the National Defense Authorization Act each year.

A central component of a U.S. strategy that seeks to maintain regional balance is the forward deployment of the U.S. military. Capable forward-deployed forces provide the United States with the ability to act quickly if necessary and maintain credible deterrence. It is much harder—and perhaps impossible in some cases—to reenter a theater once the U.S. military has departed. The logistics of shifting significant combat power takes months, and the anti-access/area denial challenges facing U.S. forces around the world mean that reentering a theater once a crisis is underway has become ever harder.

Some of the most vociferous debates among conservatives relate to the U.S. presence abroad. One camp—sometimes called isolationists, or, in more fashionable language, restrainers—calls for retrenchment. Representatives of this group have argued that the U.S. military’s forward presence represents a vision of the United States “contriving” to impose progressive values “to the ends of the earth.” Their rationale is that the United States is overextended in the world and that a U.S. presence abroad is a form of “cultural arrogance.”

This view of international relations is deeply flawed. Events around the world are not merely a reaction to the United States. China’s determination to expand globally and displace the United States is not a response to Washington but a function of Beijing’s own strategic goals. Iran’s regional aspirations flow directly from the messianic objectives of its ayatollahs. Russia is engaged in a neo-imperial project that denies the existence of sovereign nations such as Ukraine. This is not a response to an imaginary U.S. overextension but stems from a particular self-conception of Russia and its imperial elite.

Moreover, opposition to a forward presence discounts the fundamental military purpose of such deployments: to deter conflict. Deterrence is the primary means of preventing war, and it cannot be done with a “just in time” military.

Workers walk in an IBM wafer chip fabricating plant.
Workers walk in an IBM wafer chip fabricating plant.

Workers walk in an IBM wafer chip plant in Fishkill, New York, on July 20, 2004. Mario Tama/Getty Images

4. Conservative technology statecraft is based on a recognition that technology is key to 21st-century strategic competition. Technology will shape the societies, economies, and militaries of the future. The United States must retain its competitive advantages across areas essential to competition with China: artificial intelligence, quantum computing, semiconductors, biotechnology, autonomous systems, new energy technologies (such as nuclear fusion), and the critical domain of space.

Conservatives need to champion deregulation, streamline permitting, improve science and technology education, promote skills-based immigration, and increase investments in research. This will unleash the United States’ greatest competitive advantages: the free market and unbridled entrepreneurism. A starting point is to identify what has prevented reforms and progress in these areas and avoid starting from scratch.

Retaining or acquiring technological superiority will require not only an innovative and forward-looking ecosystem, but also defensive measures to protect U.S. companies from encroachment by rivals not playing by the rules. This includes efforts to prohibit all U.S. firms and research institutions—not just those in the semiconductor industry—from doing business with entities that help arm the Chinese military. One recent report revealed that only 8 percent of the 273 Chinese companies supplying artificial intelligence technology to the People’s Liberation Army are on the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Entity List. Equally important, conservatives should use their influence to engage with U.S. technology companies to assess the risks of continued investments in China.


Attendees hold up signs before former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a "Save America" rally.
Attendees hold up signs before former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a "Save America" rally.

Attendees hold up signs before former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a rally in Conroe, Texas, on Jan. 29. ARK FELIX/AFP /AFP via Getty Images

Conservative thought is often associated with skepticism about change and a bias toward order. If that were true, conservatives would be in trouble—they would be reacting to shifts in the world instead of proactively shaping them. But resistance to change is a misunderstanding of conservatism. The great conservative thinker of the British Enlightenment, Edmund Burke, valued the importance of balancing the “two principles of conservation and correction.” In Burke’s view, a “state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.”

From the economic order to the political sphere, a fragmenting world order means an increasingly uncertain path forward. Conservatives have the ability to develop policies that can help Americans conserve the best of what their country represents—and shape events in ways that are most likely to advance core U.S. national interests.

More than 30 years ago, Samuel Huntington wrote that “[d]eclinism is a theory that has to be believed to be invalidated.” In other words: The United States needs to be serious about facing its problems. Conservatives are in a good position to do so because they understand how the world works and have a fundamental confidence in the United States’ founding principles. That’s a good position from which to navigate the turbulence we face.

Nadia Schadlow is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute and a former U.S. deputy national security advisor for strategy during the Trump administration.

Join the Conversation

Commenting on this and other recent articles is just one benefit of a Foreign Policy subscription.

Already a subscriber? .

Join the Conversation

Join the conversation on this and other recent Foreign Policy articles when you subscribe now.

Not your account?

Join the Conversation

Please follow our comment guidelines, stay on topic, and be civil, courteous, and respectful of others’ beliefs.

You are commenting as .

More from Foreign Policy

Russian President Vladimir Putin chairs a commission on military-technical cooperation with foreign states in 2017.
Russian President Vladimir Putin chairs a commission on military-technical cooperation with foreign states in 2017.

What’s the Harm in Talking to Russia? A Lot, Actually.

Diplomacy is neither intrinsically moral nor always strategically wise.

Officers with the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) wait outside an apartment in Kharkiv oblast, Ukraine.
Officers with the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) wait outside an apartment in Kharkiv oblast, Ukraine.

Ukraine Has a Secret Resistance Operating Behind Russian Lines

Modern-day Ukrainian partisans are quietly working to undermine the occupation.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and French President Emmanuel Macron wave as they visit the landmark Brandenburg Gate illuminated in the colors of the Ukrainian flag in Berlin on May 9, 2022.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and French President Emmanuel Macron wave as they visit the landmark Brandenburg Gate illuminated in the colors of the Ukrainian flag in Berlin on May 9, 2022.

The Franco-German Motor Is on Fire

The war in Ukraine has turned Europe’s most powerful countries against each other like hardly ever before.

U.S. President Joe Biden holds a semiconductor during his remarks before signing an executive order on the economy in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington, D.C.
U.S. President Joe Biden holds a semiconductor during his remarks before signing an executive order on the economy in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington, D.C.

How the U.S.-Chinese Technology War Is Changing the World

Washington’s crackdown on technology access is creating a new kind of global conflict.