Trump is making the mistake that FDR shunned

In April 1941, Charles Lindbergh, the America First Committee’s most prominent leader, outlined his position that Nazi Germany’s victory was inevitable, that the United States should stay neutral and that Britain was ‘a belligerent nation’ which should agree to ‘a negotiated peace’. Lindbergh said, ‘It is a policy not of isolation, but of independence.’

The upheaval of the Oval Office meeting on 28 February between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and US President Donald Trump, punctuated by the interjection of Vice President JD Vance, did not reveal the US switching sides to join Russia but rather a foreign policy shift towards the notion of US independence and neutrality advocated by Lindbergh’s America First.

During the meeting with Zelenskyy, Trump made his position clear: ‘I’m not aligned with Putin. I’m not aligned with anybody. I’m aligned with the United States of America and for the good of the world.’

Such an impartial statement would be fair in many circumstances, such as a valuer in a property sale or an umpire officiating a sports match. But here we are dealing with a powerful nation committing war and war crimes on an innocent democracy, so sides are exactly what should be taken, and the US should be on the side of right, not might.

Those who describe Trump’s US as isolationist are simplifying a more complex foreign policy shift that sees the US role in the world no longer as the global policeman expending resources on holding aggressors to account, but as the global peacemaker between other nations in conflict, regardless of which is at fault.

Trump has not withdrawn from the world, as shown by his support for Israel and distrust for Iran, his focus on China, and even his aims to end the war in Europe. And, of course, it is always possible that in the art of the deal what we are hearing is not necessarily what we will see.

So it is Australia’s job as America’s most trusted ally to help show the dots connecting each corner of the globe and to ensure the next phase of American exceptionalism doesn’t result in geographic spheres of influence.

The US in effect joining the non-aligned movement would more likely result in a ceasefire that rewards Russia’s aggression, proves the effectiveness of the Russia-China ‘no-limits’ partnership and emboldens China in the Indo-Pacific.

What happens in Europe and NATO does matter to the Indo-Pacific. The Oval Office train crash reverberated across the globe, unsettling the US’s closest allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific. As European leaders rushed to London for a conference hosted by British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, governments across Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Taiwan were all examining the implications for our own security. Worse, China was no doubt doing the same—only looking at the possibility for territorial and strategic gain, not loss.

The US would be mistaken to think we live in an age in which China and Russia are separate. Just as US actions are raising questions about the value of its democratic alliances, the axis of authoritarian regimes is becoming more aligned.

So have we seen lasting damage? Diplomatic bust ups between friends are generally temporary, as seen by the Australian experience with the infamous first phone call between then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and Trump in January 2017. More important is the potential for permanent policy changes relating to the US’s international friends and foes.

Trump’s desire for peace and to be seen as a peacemaker is not inherently a bad thing. The US should use its strength to stop aggression—but not in a way that stops the victim fighting back, which is why any belief that the US can achieve peace by serving as a detached conflict mediator is seriously flawed.

Justice and lasting peace is not achieved through moral equivalence. The reality is stark: one side, Ukraine, was invaded, while the other, Russia, initiated an unjust war. A neutral America treating both parties as having equally legitimate claims rewards the rule breaker and would simply incentivise more of it. Indeed, in referring to Ukraine as not having the cards at the table, Trump seemed to be suggesting that Russia’s more powerful status carried with it an automatic right to come away from the negotiation with more. This shift from the US’s role as global enforcer to conflict mediator would result in a weaker world, a weaker US and Trump’s legacy being peace in his time but at any cost.

Trump has expressed admiration for former president William McKinley and has a bust of Winston Churchill in the Oval Office. His team should want to help him avoid being remembered more like Lindbergh—or like Neville Chamberlain, who appeased Hitler by signing the Munich Agreement which gave up the Sudetenland ‘for peace for our time’. Trump’s staff should put Winston Churchill’s response to the Munich Agreement alongside his bust in the Oval Office:

You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war.

After all, not supporting Ukraine now would have been akin to Franklin D Roosevelt’s United States not supporting Churchill’s Britain to carry on the fight against Nazi Germany. FDR did expect some recompense for US materiel support, including leasing of British bases, which is why the proposed US-Ukraine minerals deal is not the outrage some mistake it to be. But FDR did not demand Churchill sign a bad peace deal with Hitler. And Churchill made it clear in 1940 that Britain would not accept an end to the war that involved surrender.

We shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

Churchill’s ‘New World’ was the US as the global leader fighting against tyranny and for freedom. The battle in the Oval Office was a loss for democracy but the war is not yet over. The US would shortchange itself if it were to choose independence and fail to recognise the contribution of others to US security.

If instead the US, Europe and allies in the Indo-Pacific, including Australia, can stick together, our collective might will ensure the side of right will still win in the end.