Executive Order 14150
America First Policy Directive to the Secretary of State
Signed on January 20, 2025
On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14150, which directs the Secretary of State to align U.S. foreign policy with an “America First” approach. The order instructs the Department of State to review and modify its policies, programs, personnel, and operations to prioritize American interests above all else.
🔗 Read the Executive Order on the Federal Register
🔗 Read the White House Announcement
What You Should Know
This order is intentionally vague, leaving foreign policy decisions open to extreme nationalist interpretations.
Unlike detailed executive orders that outline specific policy changes, this order simply mandates an “America First” approach without defining what that entails. This lack of clarity allows for broad and potentially extreme applications, such as withdrawing from international agreements, reducing foreign aid, or shifting alliances based on transactional relationships rather than strategic stability. The Department of State is now required to interpret and implement this directive without clear guidelines, increasing the risk of erratic foreign policy shifts.
Diplomatic relations with allies and international organizations could be strained.
U.S. foreign policy relies on cooperation with global allies, but an aggressively nationalist approach often alienates key partners. Previous “America First” policies under Trump led to tense relations with NATO, reduced involvement in the United Nations, and the weakening of longstanding diplomatic ties. This order signals a possible return to that isolationist strategy, making it harder for the U.S. to collaborate on issues like trade, security, and climate change. Countries that rely on stable U.S. leadership may begin shifting their alliances elsewhere.
Humanitarian aid and global development programs may be deprioritized.
An “America First” stance has historically been used to justify cutting foreign aid and reducing support for international development initiatives. While proponents argue that such policies save taxpayer money, they often lead to long-term consequences, such as increased global instability, economic downturns in developing nations, and weakened diplomatic leverage. This order could lay the groundwork for withdrawing U.S. funding from key global initiatives, including humanitarian efforts, public health programs, and economic development projects.
This order appears to directly oppose the goals of Executive Order 13985, signed in 2021.
Executive Order 13985, issued by the Biden administration, focused on advancing racial equity and support for underserved communities, including through U.S. foreign policy. Trump’s new directive is vague but seems positioned to undo many of those equity-focused international initiatives. Without explicitly stating which policies will change, this order signals a broader effort to reverse programs aimed at international cooperation and fairness in global relations.
Who Wins?
Nationalist and isolationist political groups
The directive aligns with nationalist movements that advocate for reducing U.S. engagement with international organizations and prioritizing domestic interests, even at the expense of diplomatic stability. Groups that have long pushed for an “America First” foreign policy see this as a victory in shifting away from multilateral agreements.
Authoritarian-leaning foreign governments
This order opens the door for stronger relations with authoritarian regimes that operate on transactional diplomacy rather than alliances built on democratic values. Leaders who prioritize personal or economic deals over human rights protections may benefit from a U.S. foreign policy that removes emphasis from democratic accountability.
Private defense contractors and military-industrial interests
A shift toward unilateral action and a nationalist foreign policy often results in increased military spending and arms deals rather than diplomacy-based conflict resolution. Private defense contractors, arms manufacturers, and military industry leaders may benefit from this redirection of U.S. foreign policy.
Who Loses?
U.S. diplomatic leadership and global influence
Foreign policy based solely on nationalist interests weakens long-term strategic partnerships. Allies and international organizations may see the U.S. as an unreliable partner, making it harder to form coalitions, negotiate trade agreements, or respond collectively to global crises. America’s leadership role in shaping international policies could be diminished.
Humanitarian aid programs and global stability efforts
Past “America First” policies have led to funding cuts for critical programs such as disaster relief, disease prevention, and food security initiatives. Pulling back from these commitments could exacerbate global crises, leading to economic and security instability that may ultimately impact the U.S. as well.
The American economy in the long term
Global trade and investment depend on stable diplomatic relationships. If the U.S. prioritizes short-term nationalist policies over cooperative trade agreements, American businesses that rely on international markets may suffer. Reduced engagement in global economic policies can lead to retaliatory tariffs, disrupted supply chains, and a weakened position in trade negotiations.
Executive Order 14150 does not introduce any direct policy changes but lays the foundation for a shift toward an isolationist, transactional foreign policy that prioritizes nationalism over long-term diplomatic strategy. The lack of specifics allows for broad and potentially extreme interpretations, increasing the risk of instability in international relations. The consequences could include weakened alliances, reduced global influence, and economic challenges stemming from disrupted trade partnerships.
While framed as a directive to put America’s interests first, history has shown that a purely nationalist approach often backfires, leading to decreased global cooperation and increased uncertainty. The long-term impact of this order will depend on how the Secretary of State chooses to implement its vague directives.
Take Action
Stay informed and challenge misinformation about foreign policy changes.
Many claims about “America First” policies are based on political rhetoric rather than factual outcomes. Research historical impacts, fact-check policy announcements, and educate others on how foreign policy decisions affect both the U.S. and the global economy.
Support organizations that advocate for responsible international engagement.
Groups that promote diplomatic cooperation, global stability, and humanitarian aid play a crucial role in counteracting isolationist policies. Supporting organizations that work toward these goals can help mitigate the negative effects of this order.
Demand transparency from the State Department regarding implementation.
Since this executive order lacks specifics, it is important to track how the Department of State chooses to interpret and enforce it. Contacting elected officials and requesting clear policy guidelines can help prevent extreme or harmful applications of this directive.
Engage in discussions about the long-term impact of isolationist policies.
Foreign policy is often framed as a short-term political issue, but its effects last for decades. Having conversations about the historical consequences of isolationism versus cooperative diplomacy can help shape public understanding and encourage more balanced approaches to international relations.
Foreign policy decisions have lasting consequences that go beyond partisan politics. Misinformation and nationalist rhetoric often obscure the real effects of diplomatic decisions. Stay informed, seek reliable sources, and question narratives that frame isolationism as a universally beneficial strategy. Understanding the complexities of international relations is key to holding leaders accountable for the long-term impacts of their decisions.
