America’s security, moral leadership and economic health rest on a network of international norms, defined as a structured global order of laws, and balanced engagement with a network of democratic allies that amplify U.S. strength. Americans benefit from a safety net of global systems and agreements every time we fly, receive goods from overseas, or trust a financial institution because of norms supporting every aspect of our lives. From security alliances to maritime freedom of navigation, aviation safety, nuclear nonproliferation and anti-corruption measures, international partnerships and norms protect American interests.
Yet with the spread of seemingly intractable conflict, economic shocks, global political polarization, and the desire to prioritize domestic challenges, it can be easy to question the benefit of global dialogue. However, our disregard or disengagement from these norms weaken enforcement, erodes global cohesion, and allows malevolent actors and competitors to exploit that space. The world needs American leadership that values long term, values-based security commitments that produce more sustainable “wins” for the United States.
Consulting with allies, strengthening alliances, sustaining or even improving international frameworks and treaties, and emphasizing human rights concerns are ways to protect these norms. Otherwise, autocrats consolidate and expand power while vulnerable populations pay the price. Alliances wither, and accountability weakens. Public support sours, and America is increasingly isolated on the world stage.
Perception matters. Despots and autocrats closely watch America’s adherence to rules and norms. It’s a very easy jump to emulate behaviors that discount rule of law; America must be the standard to which countries, and people, aspire. If partners doubt U.S. commitment to international norms or our core reliability, they will hedge, and some will begin to look for other, more predictable alliances, turning to U.S. adversaries or pursuing independent military capabilities, including in sensitive domains like nuclear weapons.
If the United States appears unwilling to consult with allies, or if our nation hedges commitments, U.S. adversaries will test boundaries on land, in the air, at sea, and in the cyber realm. Rogue nations will evade sanctions and host malevolent nonstate actors.
The result is clear: instability and the inevitable testing of our resolve through attacks on our interests. Uncertainty about our commitments simply increases the likelihood that the men and women of the U.S. military will ultimately be called upon to fight.
It’s also critical to stress that as America continues to shift and reprioritize foreign assistance, humanitarian engagement remains a strategic imperative as well as a moral one. Fragile states that collapse under the weight of war, famine, and corruption are fertile ground for extremism, transnational exploitation and repression, crime, and mass migration. These threats eventually reach American shores, impacting American security, our economy, and our communities.
Across U.S. administrations, America has long been the global beacon for refugees fleeing persecution, journalists under threat, minorities targeted by state or nonstate violence, and civil society fighting corruption. Time and again, pressure and support from both U.S. governmental and private groups have made a difference when repression expands and freedom becomes constrained.
Moral and security considerations aren’t separate: A world in which repression expands and rules erode is a world that threatens American prosperity and security. And an international order defined by transactionalism leaves out the values of what makes America great – our unique vision of freedom, opportunity, accountability, and compassion.
Our own history demonstrates that when America chooses engagement, we live in a world aligned with both our interests and our values. While the United States is not perfect, our country has consistently stood for certain principles: Human dignity, freedom, accountability, rule of law, and the belief that power should be constrained by democratic norms.
