Project 2029 Foreign Policy
Day One Objectives
By Harry I. Hannah | Project 2029 Contributor, Retired Senior Analyst, Central Intelligence Agency 1
Joshua Kaufman | Project 2029 Contributor, former Director of the USAID Office of Policy
Introduction
American foreign policy includes broad goals and strategies for the country in its interactions with the rest of the world. US foreign policy is designed not only to react to immediate threats, such as a rising authoritarian China and an aggressive Russia, but must also be shaped by the fundamental question of what type of society we seek to build domestically, and what values we want to guide our engagement with the world. Our foreign policy strategy is built on policy principles designed to support a vision of the world we want to live in.
Foreign Policy Principles and Goals
Project 2029 identifies seven foreign policy principles to guide a new administration.
Ground foreign policy in America's highest values—that all people are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights—to build an America rooted in these ideals, embedded in a world that sustains and nurtures them.
Be guided by the principle of diplomacy first, military force last, in achieving our goals and addressing threats and challenges. The US should focus more on longer-term and underlying issues, even as near-term demands inevitably absorb attention, as many issues emerge from ignoring long-term concerns. The US should avoid unilateral military action, violations of international law, and the concept of regime change.
Deepen global interconnectedness. A secure and prosperous America collaborating closely with allies and partners to achieve collective security and shared prosperity. A transactional, zero-sum foreign policy no longer serves US interests. This approach seeks gains at others' expense while avoiding shared goals, as seen in the current administration's tariff trade wars. A rules-based order, with the United States an active participant, is the surest means of achieving collective security and shared prosperity.
Rebuild trust in America as the world’s most significant democracy and restore our international reputation, not relying solely on policies of intimidation and domination. All nations and societies have the right not to be attacked or threatened, whether it is Ukraine or Greenland. This constant, high-priority effort succeeds only with time and commitment, requiring major changes in US domestic policy—rebuilding democracy, the rule of law, addressing elite corruption, social justice, and greater equality, as we describe below.
Act to address global threats, especially climate change and highly infectious diseases, while supporting the institutions of global cooperation. Lead efforts to protect and extend human and civil rights, reduce repression, and support democracy.
Build a prosperous, pluralistic, just, and dynamic society at home. America must also pursue an ambitious and resourced foreign policy, even in the face of active resistance from hostile countries and non-state actors such as transnational corporations, as we describe below. An effective and well-resourced foreign policy is an investment, not a cost.
Strengthen America’s flexible and adaptable alliances that are the foundation of our power and prosperity. Our alliances are our greatest force multiplier that makes Americans safer and more prosperous. None of our competitors and potential advisories have anything close to our network of alliances, so we must preserve and expand this advantage.
Table of Contents
Restore America's Reputation and Rebuild Trust
The Global Context
These foreign policy principles will guide our actions as we respond to global threats, capitalize on opportunities, and build and maintain relations. To frame this global context, we first consider what is meant by ‘threats.’ We then present three critical aspects of the current global context: the deteriorating international environment, the rise of other powers, and growing socio-economic inequality.
Threats to US Security, Economy, and Democratic Institutions
This brief is not a comprehensive threat assessment, but the breadth of challenges facing the US warrants a brief delineation. Extensive global connectedness has direct and indirect impacts on the American people in ways that many find difficult to grasp.
Describing something as a 'threat' does not necessitate a military response. Many of the most serious threats—for example, climate change—fall well outside the range of situations requiring the use of force. Even more traditional threats, such as China and Russia, require equal measures of diplomatic, economic, and military responses. The US also currently overemphasizes military options in countering terrorism and transnational crime, resulting in open-ended military operations, or “forever wars.”
Designing policies and capabilities that do not depend on US military power should be the core of US foreign policy, even as military capabilities remain essential for deterring aggression and defending vital interests.
The Deteriorating International Environment
The US faces a deteriorating international environment, posing a range of direct and indirect threats to the American people. Recent international policy discussion asserts that the open rules-based international order, an order based on a loose system of formal laws, rules, guidelines, and institutions coupled with informal processes and broadly accepted diplomatic behaviors, is weakening. These rules have formed the foundation of international relations since the end of World War II and are essential to US security, prosperity, and influence, serving as a key bulwark limiting instability and violence. Beyond the structural weakening, the philosophical values that underpinned this order and are interwoven with the US domestic values are under sustained assault. These values include individual freedom, human rights, the rule of law, democracy, and the freedom to make personal economic decisions.
The overarching driver of the weakening order is that it has not evolved to account for three underlying changes since the end of the Cold War: (1) the profound global integration of countries, economies, and societies; (2) the rise of non-US powers as major actors in their own right; and (3) growing socio-economic inequality. For the US, these are acute dilemmas, since the order was based on American primacy that allowed a high degree of unilateral freedom of action. The US no longer has the same degree of relative power.
Compounding this shift, the United States has unilaterally withdrawn from a growing list of international organizations, conventions, and treaties, leaving many of these institutions to falter without US participation or funding. The world has moved on from the unipolar moment—US policy needs to catch up.
Global Integration
The most fundamental characteristic of the contemporary world is that it is profoundly integrated in ways that have no historical precedent and are not well understood by populations or elites who typically hold only a narrow perspective. Global integration affects most aspects of daily life, often operating invisibly in the background, and now encompasses much of human activity in some form. We typically notice globalization mainly when something goes wrong or we feel threatened by a global event beyond our control, whether it be a pandemic, a financial crisis, the unmanaged movement of people across borders, or a disruption in global supply chains.
Growing interconnectedness increases the risk of problems spreading and the need for collective solutions. The current administration has undermined the international order and adopted a confrontational posture to reassert dominance, thereby producing more chaos and damaging US and allied prosperity. The US has suffered as a result. Weakening that order does not produce a more stable, manageable world—it produces a more chaotic and dangerous one in which the US and allied prosperity and influence are damaged.
As of early 2026, the United States has withdrawn from nearly 70 international organizations, abandoning key institutions that address global challenges that impact the welfare of America. Among these institutions are the World Health Organization (WHO), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), UN Women, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).
Rise of Other Powers
China's rise in status to a near-peer of the U.S. is reshaping the global environment. China is an economic and technological powerhouse, and its military capability, especially in East Asia/Western Pacific, is approaching that of the US. In the past decade and a half, China has decided to assert its wealth and power globally, directly competing with the US for key interests and allies. Simultaneously, an aggressive Russia has sought to directly threaten vital US interests and allies in Europe. China's rise and Russia's aggressiveness clearly demonstrate the end of the so-called 'unipolar' world and the development of major threats to US and allied security.
The US is underplaying the rise of other countries, many in the Global South—India, Brazil, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa, for example—that now seek their own path and want to avoid subordination to either the US or China. The European Union (EU) has also developed into a significant power center. Despite its overlap with NATO, the EU has become coequal with the US in many non-defense areas, sharing many of the same goals and values. The current administration's lack of cooperation with the EU reflects a misreading of the organization and its benefits to the US.
Beyond nation-states, non-state actors have increased their power and role in the world. This includes large corporations barely tethered to any parent country, non-governmental organizations providing vital services, and transnational terrorist and criminal groups. They share a common property: the capacity and, increasingly, the intent to act independently of any state, even as their goals differ dramatically from each other. As a result, US foreign policy must address these actors within a larger cooperative system.
Growing Socio-economic Inequality
The period since the end of the Cold War has seen unprecedented advances in technology and material wealth that have benefited billions of people worldwide. Yet, a simultaneous increase in inequality has risen to unsustainable levels, empowering undemocratic elites and causing stagnation among broad swaths of the population while also propelling extremism, instability, violence, and repression. This is a global phenomenon affecting all countries, from China to developing states in the Global South to wealthy nations like the US. Reducing inequality will therefore require global approaches that are integrated with US domestic and foreign policy simultaneously.
Six Foreign Policy Action Areas
Informed by the global context and rooted in our seven foreign policy principles, we have identified six areas critical for foreign policy. For each area, we provide an overview of the importance of the problem and present policy responses that can be implemented on “Day One” of a new administration, and in the medium term of its ‘first 100 days.’ 2
(1) Restore America's Reputation and Rebuild Trust
While individual foreign policies and strategies will change in response to specific events, it is important to articulate how a new administration views the world. This perspective will shape the specific policies that respond to some 200 sovereign states and a growing array of non-state actors.
Both iterations of the current administration have made policy decisions that have significantly diminished the US's international position. The administration’s current 'America First Foreign Policy' has alienated our friends and emboldened our adversaries, making America less secure, less prosperous, and a less trustworthy global partner. These actions have adversely impacted the security and prosperity of the American people, as our nation continues to face growing global threats and instability, and economic stagnation for most people. Repairing the damage will be a full-time job. While the next President will face domestic challenges, it is vitally important to prioritize rebuilding America's international credibility, standing, and influence.
Merely seeking to return to a pre-2025 order will fail. The rest of the world has moved on and adapted accordingly, as Canadian Prime Minister Carney demonstrated by embracing 'middle powers' as an alternative framework. The US must adopt new policies to rebuild and strengthen the open rules-based international system that has advanced America’s security and prosperity since World War Two, as well as that of our closest allies and trading partners. This open international system is built upon the underlying philosophical precepts that have guided the international order since 1945: individual freedom, human rights, rule of law, democracy, and the freedom to make personal economic decisions. While many countries still support this open system and would welcome a shift in American policy to once again embrace it as a key component of our foreign policy, other international actors, such as the PRC, Russia, and transnational criminal and terrorist organizations, would rather have the U.S. working to weaken it.
This must be paired with domestic reform that addresses American problems currently weakening our international position. A new administration will have to move expeditiously to avoid further damage.
Central to that task is the requirement to rebuild trust—within the US, with allies, more distant partners, and even adversaries. The lack of trust and the wild unpredictability of a hyper-partisan executive branch, combined with congressional inaction, have forced others to act as if the US is untrustworthy, negatively impacting cooperation with allies and increasing the risks of misunderstandings with adversaries.
The current administration's foreign policy has also extended its domestic alignment with far-right, illiberal movements into Europe. In February 2025, the Vice President met with leaders of Germany's Alternative for Germany (AfD), a party designated as extremist by German domestic intelligence. In May 2025, a State Department adviser publishedan official department essay arguing the transatlantic alliance should rest on shared "Western civilizational heritage" rather than "globalist conformity,” language widely read as a religious and racial framing of European partnership. The current administration went so far as to publicly back Hungary's Orbán government, which actively undermined democracy, in a failed attempt to extend his rule.
The State Department has also directed US embassies in Europe to press host governments toward harsher immigration restrictions, and the US has revoked visas for European officials involved in countering disinformation and hate speech. Efforts to roll back the current domestic agenda must be paired with similar international efforts, as these policies must be rapidly and decisively reversed.
A new administration must move quickly to restore America's reputation and rebuild trust with allies and partners. Public statements by the President and senior officials must strongly and consistently advocate for the principles previously outlined above. Rebuilding reputation and trust requires constant reinforcement to convince the international community, especially allies and partners, that the US has genuinely changed.
Foreign governments and publics in other countries are unlikely to accept a simple return to the status quo before 2025. They will look closely at developments inside the US to determine whether previous inconsistent or destructive policy decisions are truly a thing of the past. Domestic policy decisions will therefore directly impact foreign perceptions. This includes the extent to which a new administration can end policy gridlock, tackle climate change head-on, re-establish the centrality of science and a non-partisan civil service to government policymaking, fully restore the rule of law, crack down on corruption, codify norms and expected standards of behavior as enforceable laws, and terminate harsh immigration policies. Other countries will also monitor whether those who violated civil rights laws, committed abuses of power, and engaged in corruption are investigated and held accountable.
Restoring America's reputation will also require reinvigorating its 'soft power' in part by rebuilding the tools of public diplomacy, such as Voice of America (VOA), along with other instruments that communicate American values and demonstrate US engagement with the world, such as the re-establishment of USAID. Cultural exchanges, educational programs, international broadcasting, and public communications must be restored, adequately funded, and insulated from political interference. These tools are not luxuries—they are force multipliers for US foreign policy, increasing the reach and impact of our soft power while helping to shape the information environment and demonstrating that American values remain credible and worth emulating.
Policy Responses to Bolster America’s Reputation: Day One and First-100-Days Actions
These policy priorities will send a strong signal to both our friends and adversaries that the United States is once again ready to be the indispensable nation in securing global prosperity and stability.
Restore all sanctions/tariffs on Russia. Increase military aid and economic/aid support to Ukraine. The current administration has eased sanctions imposed on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, thereby reducing pressure on Moscow to withdraw and weakening the US commitment to help our allies provide for our mutual collective defense against Russian aggression.
The current administration has bullied and threatened Denmark, a close ally, to give up control of Greenland (an autonomous part of Denmark). This has severely damaged relations with all US European allies. A new administration shall enter into formal talks with Denmark and Greenland with the goal of reaching a binding agreement that renounces any US territorial claim to Greenland, and shall apologize on behalf of the US people while directing all US government entities to cease any planning to pressure Denmark or Greenland.
The current administration made broad threats that Canada should join the US (i.e., as the 51st state), and it has met with Canadian separatists from Alberta. A new administration shall enter into formal talks with Canada with the goal of reaching a formal agreement stating that the US has no claim to Canadian territory, and shall apologize on behalf of the American people while directing all US government entities to cease all related activities.
As part of a larger Executive Order (EO) 14172, “Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness,” the current administration renamed the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. The designation of 'Gulf of America' shall return to the Gulf of Mexico, and the administration shall direct all government agencies and encourage private companies to comply. Additionally, armed forces bases will no longer be named for Confederates.
Eliminate all restrictions on foreign travel/visas/”Green Cards” imposed between 20 January 2025 and 20 January 2029. The current administration has enforced a variety of different visa bans on over three dozen countries, reflecting its draconian and racist immigration policy. Beyond harming various sectors of US society, e.g., health care, it has severely damaged America’s reputation and soft power. The new administration shall immediately restore all visa entry rules/processes to their status pre-January 20, 2025.
In concert with the broader immigration policy, cease deportations of non-violent long-term residents and asylum seekers. Conduct a 30- to90-day review of people deported for legality. Return those who were wrongfully deported under the current administration, while reviving and expanding the Interagency Task Force on the Reunification of Families. The current administration's immigration policy has significantly undermined America’s international reputation, especially among the majority of the world that is non-white and is becoming increasingly powerful.
Adequately fund the immigration court system, including hiring additional immigration judges at the Executive Office for Immigration Review, while continuing to use prosecutorial discretion to administratively close low-priority cases. This builds on Step 8 of Project 2029's immigration reform brief, which directs ICE attorneys to close or dismiss cases involving long-time residents who pose no threat and calls on Congress to fund asylum processing and adjudication; that same commitment must extend to immigration court staffing to meaningfully reduce the backlog.
Eliminate 'America First' language from all US Government content—from Voice of America to government websites, etc. The America First language used by the current administration is severely damaging America’s global reputation and weakening its “soft power”. To begin to rebuild America’s reputation and trust, the new administration must rapidly eliminate the use of this language.
Restore usage of the legal term 'Department of Defense'. The new administration shall revoke Executive Order 14347—Restoring the United States Department of War. The renaming harms the US international reputation, reinforcing an image of aggression and belligerence, and in some cases has become a term of derision.
Issue a proclamation formally revoking the current corollary to the Monroe Doctrine and stating that the Monroe Doctrine is not the policy of the US. The Monroe Doctrine and its corollary weaken the image and reputation of the US in Latin America, reinforcing the belief that the US is an imperial aggressor.
Issue an executive order directing the Attorney General, in coordination with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to catalyze enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to ensure that the actions of corporations do not run contrary to US values, policy, and law.
Revoke NSPM-7, Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence, which wrongfully characterizes domestic opposition to administration policies and social justice and equality advocacy as terrorist threats. The current administration is seeking to designate its political and ideological opponents as national security threats, a direct threat to democracy. In addition, there shall be a thorough review of the use of terrorist group designation, which has increasingly been used as a route to punish foreign adversaries in general. This is a misuse of the designation and associated powers, and it dilutes US efforts to counter international terrorists. The designation needs to be returned to its original purpose of focusing on international terrorist groups. Groups designated should be considered based on their actions, not on their political views.
(2) Engage Globally
The second—and hardest—challenge is successfully implementing those policies in the face of countries and groups that are opposed to that vision, and in the context of an increasingly interconnected global system that gravitates toward disorder. Our global environment dictates a rapid U.S. response to and engagement with issues and crises around the world. In the first days and weeks of a new administration, public diplomacy will be the dominant method to reset US foreign policy. When the US president and key foreign policy leaders speak, this is policy.
The US is a global power with geopolitical, economic, humanitarian, and environmental interests across many geographic areas and the full spectrum of diplomatic, military, economic, and socio-cultural domains. But wide global interests are not a prescription for a quasi-imperial strategy. The US must avoid the temptation to use its military power to invade or coerce other countries. A strategy of military aggression has already proven extraordinarily costly. For example, despite important US interests in preventing Iraq and Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, the 2003 Iraqi invasion and the more recent war with Iran both led to costly wars. The costs amounted to $5 trillion and almost 7,000 US military and 1,600 allied lives, along with an estimated >700,000 Iraqi and Afghan lives, with long-term negative consequences for both the American people and the world at large.
While politicians and the American public actively debate America’s role on the world stage, as a practical matter, once a new administration is in place, there is limited ability to disengage from the world without major negative consequences. A "non-engagement" policy is itself a form of engagement with its own set of benefits and risks.
The US has a choice in how it engages, what tools it uses, and what strategies it adopts.
Most importantly, the strategy to protect US interests does not require coercive means except in extreme cases and must treat a military response as a last resort rather than overemphasizing these aspects of its national security strategy for 30 years.
Public Diplomacy: First Weeks of a New Administration
In order to rapidly engage with the world and overcome the disengagement of “America First”, the new administration must undertake an ambitious campaign of public diplomacy. Other countries will be anxiously anticipating US policy changes, so a new administration must rapidly move to prevent a void that would be exploited by those opposed to the US.
In the opening weeks of a new administration, public diplomacy will be a major factor as it sets a new international tone and tenor with the following initiatives and actions:
Invite key allies to the inauguration and host meetings with principal allies, including the President of Ukraine. This should include organizing a mini-NATO summit at the same time. Prime Ministers of Canada and Denmark, especially, should be welcomed.
Meet with top EU officials to begin the process of repairing relations and building stronger ties.
Meet with the UN Secretary General to reaffirm commitment to international/multilateral organizations. Pay all dues owed and resume regular payment of dues to the UN and other international organizations.
Meet with key allies in the Indo-Pacific, potentially with a “ Quad” (US, Japan, India, Australia arrangement) mini-summit.
Use the US-Canada-Mexico summit to showcase preliminary changes in trade and immigration policy, as well as to reaffirm that the US has no ambitions for Canada and is returning to the Gulf of Mexico designation.
Depending on time and availability, meet with key leaders in the Global South.
Send VPOTUS to the Munich Security Conference in February to make an explicit rejection of the current administration's views on foreign policy in general and Europe in particular.
Announce plans for early POTUS trips to Europe and Asia. Engagement with Europe should include both NATO and the EU, while engagement in the Indo-Pacific should include key allies and Quad partners.
Immediately send key civil and foreign service representatives, military and intelligence leaders and, once confirmed, top-level administration officials (Secretaries of State, Defense, and Treasury) to engage with countries around the world -- not just allies in Europe and the Indo-Pacific, but the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. They should have a consistent message advocating for the principles and policies outlined here.
Issue interim National Security Strategy (NSS), National Defense Strategy (NDS), and related documents early.
(3) Diplomacy First
The US should place diplomacy — the method of influencing decisions and behaviors of foreign governments and people through dialogue, negotiations, and other measures short of war or violence — at the center of its foreign policy. This would reverse a bias toward military and intelligence dominance that has persisted since 9/11.
Non-military and non-coercive policies and means, especially diplomacy, trade and economic relations, development assistance, and soft power, should drive US strategy. Such an approach must dovetail with a strategy of cooperatively working with allies and partners. It shall emphasize shared goals and perspectives and narrow the scope of issues and countries where coercive means are applied.
As an accurate phrase has it: ‘’If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” The US must develop and elevate more tools in its toolkit. The costs of this imbalance are tangible: years of militarized counter-terrorism policy have produced persistent instability rather than durable security, and the diplomatic relationships, global partnerships and institutions, and goodwill that might have provided more sustainable solutions have been chronically under-resourced. Correcting this imbalance is not a sign of weakness—it is a recognition that the US will achieve more of its core goals through leadership, persuasion, and partnership than through coercion.
Return the State Department to the center of foreign policy. The wars in the greater Middle East/South Asia, counter-terrorism priorities, and long-standing distrust of diplomats (especially during the current administration) have hollowed out the State Department. The US should increase the State Department's budget and the international aid budget to once again give diplomacy and development real weight. Some of this funding may be from reprogrammed spending from the DoD, with no diminution in US security.
Former Secretary of Defense General (Ret.) Mattis said in 2013: ‘’If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately. So I think it's a cost-benefit ratio. The more that we put into the State Department's diplomacy, hopefully, the less we have to put into a military budget as we deal with the outcome of an apparent American withdrawal from the international scene.’’
Policy Responses for Diplomacy First
Issue an EO/proclamation reaffirming State Department leadership in foreign policy.
As soon as possible, issue an interim National Defense Strategy (NDS) in concert with an interim National Security Strategy (NSS) to delineate broad defense approaches and policies. Military strategy shall be broadly guided by the priorities of supporting diplomacy, deterring aggression, and defending vital interests in close collaboration with allies and partners.. Priority military focus should be on security and prosperity in Europe and the Indo-Pacific.
Announce a plan to appoint professional foreign service officers and well-qualified diplomats as US Ambassadors and seek to ensure all positions are filled. While every administration has used Ambassadorial positions as rewards for political allies and campaign contributions, the country’s increasingly complex and high-stakes international relations require experienced and knowledgeable diplomats.
Immediately review all US military operations and cease those that do not adhere to guiding principles. The review should focus on foreign policy, strategy, and legal guidelines.
Ensure that all military operations are in accordance with US and international law and that the War Powers Act is being adhered to, while also reconstituting various Offices of Inspectors General across national security agencies to restore whistleblower capacity. The administration shall also restore the full capacity of Judge Advocate General (JAG) National Security Attorneys to ensure military leaders are advised on the law of armed conflict, the law of the sea, and intelligence law. Both Inspectors General and JAG attorneys shall be required to report to administration officials outside of the DoD to prevent dishonest self-assessments
Move quickly to re-craft its foreign policy in the Middle East, given that the current administration’s policy of instability and violence in the region has damaged US interests and goals. While there will likely be unforeseen changes in the next 2-3 years, a new administration must account for ongoing confrontations, including in Iran, Lebanon, Israel, and the Palestinian territories, in order to safeguard the lives and property of innocent civilians, constrain terrorism, protect global energy flows, prevent widespread wars, and set conditions to ensure American resources support improved human rights, non-proliferation, and political openness.
Respond to the need for an urgent recalibration of American foreign policy toward Israel and the Palestinian territories. The October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians killed approximately 1,200 people, took over 240 hostages, and constituted grave violations of international humanitarian law. In the military campaign that followed, Israeli operations in Gaza have killed more than 73,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, a figure the State Department has itself cited in its own internal reporting. On September 16, 2025, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory reached a non-binding conclusion that Israel's conduct in Gaza met the legal threshold for genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention. A principled American foreign policy must condemn these acts while simultaneously holding all parties, including close allies, to the same standards of international law.
Issue an executive order formally recognizing the State of Palestine within the pre-1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, directing all federal agencies to update official maps, documents, and communications accordingly. The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations shall be directed to refrain from vetoing Security Council resolutions supporting Palestine's full UN membership. Israel's ability to exist within secure borders has been a reality for several decades, with many nations worldwide recognizing Israel’s existence. The same principle, that every people has the right to a sovereign homeland and self-determination, must apply equally to Palestinians. Recognition of Palestinian statehood is not a rebuke of Israel's existence; it is the logical extension of the same right to sovereignty and self-determination. Over 150 of 193 UN member states now recognize Palestinian statehood, including G20 members Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Brazil.
Cease advocacy for the Monroe Doctrine and its newer "corollary" and restore the rule of law in counter-narcotics actions in Latin American policy. A new administration must state early on that the US intends to build closer relations, expand economic and trade links, support socio-economic development and democracy, respond to humanitarian crises, and address climate change challenges. Supporting communities in Latin America will reduce irregular migration.
The new administration shall lead a comprehensive international approach to securing our borders, reforming our migration laws, and partnering with others to solve this problem. It shall include targeted USAID community development, violence reduction, and job-creation programs in high-emigration foreign municipalities to reduce the push factors that drive unauthorized immigration flows toward the United States. This approach mirrors Step 8 of Project 2029's immigration reform brief, which directs the State Department to fund NGO-operated migrant shelters in Mexico. USAID should apply the same model to Central America, prioritizing partnerships with local NGOs, cooperatives, and municipal governments.
Commit early to building close relations with African states to expand economic and trade links, support development and democracy, respond to humanitarian crises, and address the challenges of climate change. US diplomacy must work to end the serious conflicts on the continent and undertake a thorough review of counter-terrorism operations in Africa with the goal of reducing direct military action unless American and/or allied well-being is directly harmed. The US must also cease its racially-based immigration and travel policies towards Africa and restore funding for critical health and development needs.
Cease coercive actions and end sanctions intended to achieve 'regime change' in Cuba. Cease actions intended to only benefit major oil companies. These actions damage the US’s reputation in Latin America, threaten a large unplanned humanitarian and immigration crisis, and contribute to wider instability in Cuba. Pursue actions to support democracy, civil society, and human rights in Venezuela. The current administration's policy of favoring the oil industry and perpetuating Venezuela's corrupt oligarchy will lead to internal instability, as popular demands for democracy and economic progress will not be met.
End extrajudicial, unverified lethal strikes on individuals characterized as drug traffickers in the Caribbean and Pacific—strikes the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has found to violate international law due to a lack of due process—and bring counter-narcotics operations into compliance with international human rights standards and US law. Initiate investigations into violations of US and international law.
Despite China's reluctance to enter into arms control negotiations and our significant tensions with Russia, the US must reinvigorate arms control and non-proliferation policies, including the establishment of direct communication links for acute crises. Even if initially unsuccessful, active discussions supported by senior policymaker engagement can contain tensions, increase transparency, and ease the drivers of arms races. Treaty efforts should be updated to reflect current and projected technological trends, including hypersonic glide weapons, AI cyber attacks, quantum systems breaking global financial system cryptography, to reduce the possibility of horrific damage but also reduce US and global spending.
Conduct a 30- to 90-day review of US arms transfer policy to include preferences to support alliances, human rights, and regional stability/arms balances. The US arms transfer policy should be driven by diplomatic goals, not the financial interests of defense manufacturers. Moreover, the US arms transfer policy should be guided by the overarching objective of regional stability and minimizing arms races.
Rebuild State Department capacity through an immediate executive order to increase coordination between the State Department, USAID, the National Security Council (NSC), DoD, and other national security-related agencies. This order must break down departmental silos, expand multi-agency task forces, and increase rotational assignments working under State Department or NSC authority. Rebuilding the State Department will take years, so the new administration must provide the Department with the necessary resources until such time as it has recovered, if diplomacy is to become the driving force of US foreign policy.
Restore US membership in all international organizations withdrawn from after January 2025 and abide by all treaties that existed on 20 January 2025, including the Paris Climate Treaty and the World Health Organization (WHO). It shall start by revoking Executive Order 14199, announcing the US will pay its full dues to the UN and other international organizations, and providing the State Department sufficient resources to reintegrate. The US shall proceed with the continuation of the nuclear testing moratorium and initiate informal cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC), since the US has failed to ratify either treaty. Action must include rescinding Executive Order 14203, which had weaponized U.S. economic and immigration authorities against ICC prosecutors and judges conducting legitimate investigations into alleged war crimes.
On day one, sign an Executive Order addressing United States leadership within multilateral organizations, which shall include: rejoining the Paris Agreement and offering to host the Conference of the Parties; rejoining the WHO and other U.N. bodies while working with Congress to restore funding to fiscal year 2023 levels; rejoining UNESCO; and rejoining UN Women and UNFPA.
Reestablish and reform USAID (see Project 2029 USAID policy) and restore funding and authorities for all public information/diplomacy organizations—Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, etc.
(4) International Economics and Trade
The current administration’s “America First” approach to international economics and trade has represented a radical departure from the bipartisan consensus that has endured since the second World War. Our trade policy is domestically and internationally perceived as a clumsy shift toward a mix of protectionism primarily via tariffs, an ad hoc industrial policy where the U.S. government has taken an ownership stake in certain firms, and a misguided and ineffective transactional approach to bilateral trade relations.
Coupled with the war with Iran, this protectionist approach has alienated our most important trading partners, without meaningfully opening new markets to U.S. exports. In addition, the combination of tariffs and the war in the Middle East is sparking a rapid increase in inflation and creating economic system instability both in the U.S. and globally, further damaging our economic security.
A new administration must revamp America's approach to international economics and trade, in particular, abandoning the use of tariffs as a tool of coercion, and limiting the use of sanctions (e.g., Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) to reduce incentives to develop alternative financial systems.
While tariffs may offer short-term protection, they often create inefficiencies and supply-chain disruptions. The vast majority of economic experts view tariffs as ineffective, frequently producing unintended harms to domestic consumers and businesses.
The next president should direct the United States Trade Representative to find quick wins, including those below, within the first 100 days of the Administration. The goal must be to demonstrate that international trade is one of the most effective ways to build cooperation and mutual prosperity, and it is not a tool to advance narrow foreign policy interests through punitive and arbitrary measures.
Policy Responses for International Economics & Trade
Initiate a 30- to 90-day review of all tariffs placed between January 20, 2025, and January 20, 2029, with the goal of eliminating any non-essential tariffs, except for those absolutely necessary for national security purposes (e.g., those tied to responding to specific security threats such as Russian, Iranian, or Chinese technology). Action shall be taken to restore those which remain to the levels from January 20, 2025 (perhaps with some exclusions for national security reasons unrelated to trade, such as with Iran, China, and Russia).
The new President shall direct the Secretary of State and the U.S. Trade Representative to develop specific plans within the first year of the administration to strengthen economic relationships with our strategic economic partners, including the European Union and other European states, Canada, Mexico, Taiwan, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and key partners in the Global South. Beyond trade, these plans should address issues related to critical minerals, supply chains, and sustainable energy adoption to drive American prosperity and address issues of fair trade so as not to reward countries that take advantage of their citizens. Support the World Trade Organization, including a commitment to appointing American judges to the Dispute Settlement Mechanism.
Initiate the process to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and commence trade talks with the EU.
The US must rejoin the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Global Tax Deal, an international agreement to establish a 15% global corporate minimum and new rules allowing countries to tax large multinational companies based on where they operate, not just where they are headquartered. These measures are designed to make it harder for corporations to dodge taxes by shifting profits to low-tax jurisdictions, serving as a model for this type of international coordination. Expand trade talks to include a broader economic/social agenda, including regulatory, corporate governance, and environmental/climate change areas.
Leverage our partnerships with key multilateral institutions to lead global efforts to collectively address the emerging issues around AI, cryptocurrency, space exploration, and equitable access to the internet. These efforts shall promote international systems to prevent dangerous or harmful outcomes as AI and crypto proliferate and ensure that benefits and access are shared equitably and lead to poverty alleviation worldwide.
Initiate a 30– to 90-day comprehensive review of US sanctions policy to narrow its scope to reduce damage to global commerce and strengthen America's international economic position. The US has long overused financial and economic sanctions as a tool of foreign policy. It is leading to other countries seeking end-arounds from the US, weakening US diplomatic power, and negatively impacting US prosperity.
(5) An Alliance-Centric Strategy
The U.S. has historically built its foreign policy on a network of alliances and institutions that provided a myriad of benefits to the American people. In the years immediately following the Second World War, the United States faced a new global threat in the Soviet Union. The US aimed to help rebuild war-torn European and Asian economies to prevent future global economic depressions, while also navigating the end of European colonialism and the creation of dozens of new countries worldwide. In response to this long list of global challenges, the US led the creation of an unprecedented number of alliances and international institutions that succeeded beyond all expectations in keeping the United States secure and prosperous, while benefiting billions of people around the world despite continued global instability. The benefits of these legacy alliances and institutions include:
National Security: Alliances, such as NATO and our Indo-Pacific alliances, provide a crucial advantage over competitors by strengthening defense through collective action, shared technology, and intelligence. Neither China nor Russia has anything like our network of global alliances to rely on.
Prosperity: International treaties and organizations facilitate trade, protect the intellectual property of our innovation economy, guarantee supply chains, and enforce rules and contracts to support a high-functioning global economy.
Addressing Transnational Threats: Threats like pandemics, terrorism, and climate change cannot be contained within borders and require multi-country collaboration.
Burden Sharing and Capacity: Multilateral institutions act as force multipliers by sharing the cost of humanitarian aid, peacekeeping, and economic development.
Global Influence and Legitimacy: By acting through international organizations like the UN, the U.S. gains greater legitimacy for its initiatives and can establish international rules of behavior that keep Americans safe.
In the face of growing direct competition from China and Russia, persistent regional and terrorist threats, and systemic global challenges, the US needs to place strengthening its alliances at the center of its foreign policy. Our allies are more important now than ever. The US should treat building alliances and partnerships as the central focus of foreign policy and strategy—building a thick web of relationships that can be adapted to address the myriad threats and challenges and leverage opportunities to our collective benefit. This represents a shift in perspective from a purely nation-state-centric foreign policy to an alliance- and partnership-centric one.
The US cannot provide for its security and prosperity on its own. It lacks the necessary unilateral economic, military, and diplomatic power, which has continually diminished due to China’s continued manufacturing, economic, military, and political expansion, along with deepening challenges at home. As we face growing threats from China and Russia in the face of sustained economic headwinds, the US and its allies cannot individually afford separate responses.
However, combining American capabilities with those of allies and partners shifts the equation substantially in our favor. The combined capabilities of US mutual defense allies—along with other allies and partners, including large countries like India—provide the essential foundation for US security.
US alliance policy must be built on an honest assessment of history and not ignore past mistakes—from the relative unilateralism (in comparison to the war in Afghanistan or the first Gulf War) of the 2003 Iraq invasion to 'America First.' The decline in alliance trust makes close and equal cooperation—not dictation—the central tenet of going forward. A new administration must rapidly launch a major diplomatic campaign to rebuild that trust through greater collaboration on decision-making, combined planning, and military modernization. The US must shift from only demanding that NATO and our Asian mutual defense allies increase their defense capabilities to mutual cooperation that enables all nations to take on more responsibility. Reverting to pre-2025 alliance policy alone is insufficient to address current threats or compensate for past mistakes.
Many US alliances have historically been designed to integrate combined capabilities so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, as exemplified by NATO and mutual defense allies in the Asia-Pacific. The US should expand this pattern to create a multiplier effect at a more affordable price. The most effective, efficient, and affordable strategy to counter these threats is to collectively pool the combined resources and build a more integrated defense capability.
Historically, alliance relationships have centered on military threats. However, the evolution of a more interconnected international environment, the scope of threats posed by China and Russia, and the expansion of global challenges require widening the concept of alliances to include economic, socio-cultural, and political dimensions. As a starting point, for example, the US could form a global health alliance to suppress wide-ranging health threats, build capacity to respond to future pandemics, and support coordinated international economic development. (See Project 2029’s USAID Policy Brief and Budget & Appropriations Appendix)
Perhaps the most important non-defense relationship the US needs to broaden and deepen is with the European Union. The EU may be the world's most important international regulator and shaper of global norms, and the US is the other major global regulator and norm-shaper. Before the current administration, the US and EU largely shared values and broad policy goals focused on a more prosperous and equitable world and on addressing global challenges. There is no EU equivalent in the Indo-Pacific, making the diplomatic task of building deep relationships more complex—but equally important. A much closer US-EU relationship would significantly improve prospects for strengthening the rules-based international order.
The alliance-centric strategy will require US leadership to broaden and deepen cooperation across all aspects of government. For non-military and non-intelligence departments and agencies, this would entail beginning the long process of building the type of collaborative relationships with allies and partners that are more typical of the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community. USAID’s broad network of formal and informal donor partnerships is a good model. The intent is to create, across the US government, the type of shared perspective and combined action present in military and intelligence organizations—including increased integration in policy making, resource decisions, and implementation among allies to counter the broad range of challenges from China and Russia and address growing systemic threats.
Urgent problems such as climate change, global health security, technology governance, supply chain resilience, financial sanctions coordination, and responses to disinformation and election interference require sustained interagency and international cooperation to be effective. While dealing with a contested post-election environment will be a domestic issue, there may be foreign dimensions, including efforts by foreign governments, political organizations, and major corporations attempting to aid US actors seeking to overturn the results.
Recognizing that past actions have reduced trust in the US, a new administration shall issue an executive order increasing cooperation at the top policy level, including the White House. This shall entail expanding beyond mere 'consultation' to include allies in regular and ongoing policy-making and resource allocation discussions, signaling a genuine commitment to a partnership model rather than a unilateral one. This order shall direct all government departments and agencies to develop ambitious plans to expand cooperation with allies/partners, especially NATO, the EU, Mexico, and key allies in the Asia/Pacific region.
Policy Responses for an Alliance-centric Strategy
While specific policy responses can change, we provide illustrative examples of Day One policies to illustrate the significance of an alliance-centric strategy in three specific contexts: (1) restoring deterrence in Europe and supporting Ukraine, (2) countering the aggression of the People’s Republic of China, and (3) resurrecting nuclear arms control and nonproliferation.
1. Restoring Deterrence in Europe and Supporting Ukraine
On day one, the new President must issue a formal National Security Memorandum (NSM) to counter Russian aggression. This should:
Recommit the United States to fully supporting NATO Article Five, noting that the only time it has been invoked was after 9/11, and that any attack on any NATO member will be viewed as a direct attack against the United States. This action will bolster America’s national security by ensuring our allies are prepared to immediately defend Americans in the event of an attack.
Direct the Department of Defense (DoD) to ensure that we have the necessary force structure in Europe to carry out all likely contingencies. Maintaining a credible forward presence in Europe is the cheapest form of deterrence against Russian aggression available; the alternative is a conflict that would cost American lives and trillions of dollars.
Direct the NSC, the DoD, and the State Department to work with NATO partners to provide direct economic support and weapons to Ukraine. This burden-sharing must be paired with guardrails to ensure that targeted aid does not become a blank check. Every dollar spent arming Ukraine to defend itself is a dollar that keeps American troops out of a land war in Europe.
Work with NATO and Ukraine to develop and implement a strategy to end the war on terms that preserve Ukrainian sovereignty, assure its territorial integrity, and prevent Russian aggression from reaching NATO's doorstep and American soil. Support European efforts to strengthen the European defense organization within NATO.
Direct the DoD, DHS, the State Department, and the Intelligence Community to develop a national strategy, in coordination with NATO allies, to counter Russia's increasingly brazen 'grey zone' activities. These coercive actions, which register just below the threshold of war, include cyber attacks, electoral interference, social media bots, drone overflights, etc., in Europe and the United States. This national strategy must restore funding and programs to defend our own infrastructure, elections, and information integrity against Russian operatives.
Support European efforts of using frozen Russian bank accounts to fund Ukraine's war effort by taking parallel action at home.
Partner with Europe on new approaches to implement sanctions on Russia and other tools of economic statecraft to increase the cost to Russian elites for supporting Putin.
Increase U.S. support and involvement in the NATO Joint Force Training Center to improve tactical interoperability with NATO allies.
2. Countering the Military Aggression of the People’s Republic of China (PRC)
The 2029 National Security Strategy, the National Defence Strategy, and the State Department/USAID Joint Strategic Plan must make it clear that countering the PRC's efforts to challenge the open international order and global peace is the United States' top foreign policy concern, while also establishing a coordinated, long-term whole-of-government approach toward addressing the PRC's actions.
Reaffirm our strong commitment to working collectively with our key Indo-Pacific allies by:
Sign a new National Security Memorandum to kickstart diplomatic and military cooperation among the 'Quad' of the United States, Japan, Australia, and India, and reaffirm support for the Quad's framework to promote a 'free, open, and inclusive' Indo-Pacific region.
Update defense agreements with our Indo-Pacific treaty partners (Australia, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Thailand and the Philippines) and encourage increased military and diplomatic cooperation between them. The alliance system in the region needs to be updated from its historical hub-and-spoke structure to a more flexible web.
Develop a coordinated Critical Minerals and Supply Chain Resilience plan with key European and Asian allies, rather than follow our current 'go it alone' policy.
Formally sign onto the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership, which we helped negotiate but then pulled out of before it was implemented. This agreement will unlock opportunities for American manufacturers, workers, service providers, farmers, and ranchers, and will support job creation and wage growth
Reset our relations with key partners in the Global South, including Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia, who have been forced more into Beijing's orbit by our counterproductive policies during the current administration.
Reset our relationship with the PRC to advance areas of shared interest such as climate change and global health security. US leaders should engage with PRC leadership directly and early to start a steady dialogue on economic, environmental protection, and security issues. While China poses significant challenges to the US, it is vitally important to establish a stable relationship with Beijing to reduce the chances that contentious issues will lead to a crisis or war.
3. Resurrecting Nuclear Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
While neither Russia nor the PRC is currently a cooperative partner, the new President should include language about their vision for a non-nuclear world in their inaugural address and invite Russia and the PRC to a summit designed to lead to a new set of treaties to reduce the number and sophistication of nuclear weapons and delivery systems in our arsenals.
At the same time, the next president must make it clear that our commitments under our nuclear umbrella remain strong and there is no need for our allies to develop their own nuclear arsenals.
Given that the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has set the Doomsday Clock to 85 seconds to midnight, it is also vital that the next president build a global coalition to reduce the likelihood of nuclear terrorism (stolen material) or nuclear attack while addressing the longer-term danger that nuclear powers such as North Korea and potentially Iran pose to humanity, and that the United States, Russia, and PRC establish confidence-building measures and updated protocols to avoid the use of weapons of mass destruction during periods of crisis.
In its first days or weeks, a new administration must demonstrate a real commitment to non-proliferation and arms control with aligned appointees to State and Defense Department positions and strong diplomatic outreach to multilateral organizations.
(6) Personnel and Organizational Reforms
As the current administration has demonstrated, '’personnel is policy.’' A new administration must rapidly and decisively reverse the harmful personnel and organizational changes the current administration has implemented, which impede policies in support of the vision set forth here. Beyond being foundational actions to change policy, these revocations will demonstrate to the international community the new administration's commitment to change.
Policy Responses for Personnel & Organizational Reforms
Freeze, review, revoke/revise all EOs, presidential proclamations, and OPM regulations/guidelines/policies issued since 20 January 2025. Including: Executive Order 14170 – Reforming the Federal Hiring Process, Executive Order 14356 – Continued Accountability in Federal Hiring, Executive Order 14171—Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions, Executive Order 13957 (from 2020), renaming "Schedule F" positions as "Policy/Career." Reinstate protections of EO 14003 regarding disciplinary actions.
Fully restore in law, regulation, and practice all restrictions on politicizing the civil service (e.g., Hatch Act guidelines).
Review all personnel actions that occurred between January 20, 2025, and January 20, 2029, to ensure all decisions and actions were in accordance with personnel rules and policy in place before January 20, 2025.
Suspend the federal hiring freeze as it applies to the State Department, the Department of Defense, the Intelligence Community, and international components of other agencies.
Fully reinstate the American Foreign Service Association as representing the Foreign Service and revoke Executive Order 14251, known as “Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Program.” This EO sought to reduce federal workers’ labor rights and allowed the president to further undermine the non-partisan nature of the civil service and enable additional authority for political retaliation.
Reduce the role of the Benjamin Franklin Fellowship in the State Department. Membership is emerging as a political-ideological loyalty test to the president and “America First” policies, undermining the non-partisan basis of the US diplomatic corps.
Direct the national security adviser to task an interagency task force with participation in necessary rotations to support State or the NSC as appropriate.
Investigate/review and cease all punitive actions against the State Department, DoD, the Intelligence Community, USAID, and other foreign policy elements conducted from 20 January 2025 to 20 January 2029. Hold illegal punitive behavior accountable through criminal, civil, or administrative law.
To reaffirm the State Department's leadership, (re)issue a memorandum reconfirming and strengthening that Ambassadors are the senior representatives in-country. Appoint theater leaders and place all of the region’s military leaders and forces under them. Reprogram funding and direct the DoD and the Intelligence Community to ensure implementation.
Reinstate pre-January 2025 DoD legal/oversight Inspectors General, organizations, policies, rules, and guidelines for military operations. Restore military legal institutions (JAGs, etc.) to their previous role, capacity, and mission guidance.
Issue an executive order requiring all military operations to adhere to US and international law. Review all military actions between January 20, 2025, and January 20, 2029, for potential violations and, as necessary, legal accountability.
Issue an executive order reducing the DoD's involvement in domestic law enforcement. Counter-narcotics and counter-criminal policies/actions should be addressed as law enforcement issues, not national security threats. Reducing the use of US military forces in law enforcement will save defense resources and help preserve democracy and the rule of law inside the US.
Withdraw all DoD personnel assigned to domestic law enforcement operations deployed on US territory, especially supporting enforcement of immigration laws.
Terminate all legal actions against State, Defense, Justice Departments, and intelligence community personnel initiated as part of the current administration's broad retaliation campaign. Reinstate necessary security clearances and settle existing lawsuits of those affected.
Direct the Department of Justice's National Security Division to conduct a comprehensive audit and enforcement review of compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) across all foreign-principal lobbying relationships, with particular attention to organizations engaged in sustained domestic policy advocacy, campaign financing, and public messaging on behalf of foreign government interests. The DOJ shall issue formal guidance clarifying that organizations meeting FARA's operative standard of acting at the direction or control of a foreign principal, or primarily serving foreign government interests, must register regardless of organizational structure or claimed independence. The order shall establish a compliance timeline and authorize legal enforcement for noncompliance.
Footnotes
All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official positions or views of the U.S. Government. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying U.S. Government authentication of information or endorsement of the author's views.
We begin with ‘Day One’ policy briefs in each topic area, but will be publishing subsequent briefs related to medium- and longer-term timeframes.