Misunderstanding How U.S. Foreign Policy is Formulated— An Analysis (24 June 2025) by Lawrence Davidson
Part I—The Misunderstanding
Marco Rubio is reportedly Donald Trump’s heir apparent. Presently, he is also both Secretary of State and National Security Adviser. In this regard, it is to be kept in mind that, while he has an excellent record as Trump’s sycophant, he has no learned knowledge of diplomacy or international affairs. It is against this backdrop that he appeared at the June 3, 2025 “American Compass Fifth Anniversary Gala” and gave a speech on the alleged true nature and formation of U.S. diplomacy.
Before I go into an analysis of Rubio’s speech (or at least the relevant part) let’s identify the American Compass. It is certainly not an instrument for pointing out cardinal directions. It is rather interested in one direction: “charting the course for conservative economics.” In this effort they tell us that the organization exists to encourage public policy to emphasize “productive markets, supportive communities and representative politics.” This sounds like “friendly” capitalism in action. In practice, American Compass is friendly to most of Donald Trump’s agenda.
That is why Rubio was invited to The American Compass Gala to describe the basis of U.S. diplomacy under the Trump administration. Here is some of what he said:
“The number one priority of our foreign policy must be … the United States and what’s in the best interest of the United States … and not what is good for the international order or what was good for the world.”
Rubio goes on to complain that past administrations never operated with this real purpose of diplomacy in mind. “Ultimately, a lot of public policy decisions were made without the nation-state [the U.S.] in mind. Rather, the decision was: Is this good for the global economy? Is this good for global economic growth? And we made those decisions even during the Cold War to some extent. We allowed nations to treat us unfairly in trade, but we allowed them to do it because we didn’t want those countries to become victim to a communist revolution that would overthrow them. But then we kept it going. And so today there are multiple countries around the world that are fully developed economies, but whom we have enormous trade imbalances because they want to continue that system moving along.”
Rubio then moved on to characterize decisions made by predecessors in terms of foreign policy as if that was somehow separate from economic and trade concerns.
“Not only did we take out nation-state interest and the national interest out of our economic policies; we also took it out of the way we made foreign policy decisions. The idea that our foreign policy, depending on the place and on the issue, should be centered and focused primarily on what is good for the United States was completely lost. Time and again, we made decisions in foreign policy because of what was good for the international order or what was good for the world. And I’m not saying those things are irrelevant, but the number one priority of our foreign policy must be the United States … what’s in the best interest of the United States.”
Part II— How It Is Really Done
Neither Marco Rubio nor Donald Trump understands how American diplomacy is really formulated. They seem not to realize that the practice evolves out of the nature of U.S. politics. Thus:
—The U.S. is not really a democracy of individuals, most of whom have very little ability to influence policy, particularly foreign policy.
— While some Americans have simply given up on politics, others have found a way around the problem of lack of influence.
— To overcome this problem of powerlessness some Americans with similar interests have pooled their financial and voting power and then approached the government as collectives which we now call special interests or lobbies.
— This may seem like a favorable political progression in a supposed representative democracy, but it has its drawbacks:
— The major drawback is that the notion of national interests (that is the interest of the nation-state as a whole) becomes replaced by the parochial interests of very powerful special interests. These parochial interests are then misrepresented to the population as national interests.
Here are two prime examples of this process as it has impacted foreign policy:
— Why, with the exception of a few years during the Obama administration, has the U.S. never evolved a realistic policy toward Cuba? Because America’s skewed policy was essentially shaped by the politically powerful Cuban exile community in conjunction with hardline anti-communists. Even when this latter sentiment dissipated, the power of the Cuban exile leaders persisted. This is despite the rest of the world, including Central and South America making their peace with Cuba—a country whose leaders were never war criminals and never sought to undermine international law. What national interest did continuing U.S. hostility toward Cuba serve?
— Why is it that since 1967, the U.S. has supported Israel’s refusal to grant self-determination to the Palestinians? This would have long ago helped create a more stable and peaceful Middle East and gone a long way toward shaping the US’s regional image in a positive fashion. Instead, we have protected and subsidized a country that is consistently in violation of international law. A foreign country that has now launched a genocide in Gaza and waged periodic war against Lebanon, Syria and Iran. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, Washington has not done this out of any national interest, but because policy is essentially shaped by yet another politically powerful special interest, the Zionist lobby, promoting their own parochial interests, indeed, arguably putting the interests of a foreign power—Israel—ahead of those of the U.S.
Part III— Conclusion
The Trump Administration does not, as Marco Rubio claims, represent U.S. national or “nation-state” interest. This administration is, in fact, representative of a coalition of interest groups attempting to install their own parochial interests as the nation’s interest. This coalition is made up of white Christian fundamentalists and white racists of all stripes. Oddly enough, in terms of foreign policy, this coalition is held together and motivated by its support for yet another interest group—American Zionists.
For decades the influence of the Zionist lobby has resulted in persistent diplomatic and material support for Israel—a racist state, increasingly controlled by Jewish religious fanatics, that has held another people, the Palestinians, in a subordinate status in violation of both international and humanitarian law. By consistently supporting Israel, the U.S. has alienated most of the Arab and Muslim world and kept the Middle East in an unsettled state. That state has now erupted into a dangerous war into which the Trump administration has decided to take an active part.
A truly disastrous coalescence of two amoral, autocratic leaders—Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu—and the present reactionary nature of the governments they lead, has led to unrestrained oppression and war on the part of Israel—first in Gaza and now with Iran. This war scenario, supported both diplomatically and materially by the U.S., is in no way in the interest of the United States as a whole. Most Americans are opposed to the present U.S. involvement in the Middle East.
Nonetheless, when Marco Rubio got up in front of the American Compass Gala and extolled the virtues of the supposedly authentic diplomacy of the Trump administration, the gathering cheered. This was testimony to the ignorance and isolation of the crowd. Their narrow and ideologically-shaped worldview stood in for accurate awareness of international events. Their cheers encouraged warped and violent policies. It was a moment when illusion triumphed.
