The U.S. Strategic Retrenchment and the Evolution of International Order by ZHOU Fangyin
U.S. strategic retrenchment has had significant implications for the international order.
Welcome to the 66th edition of our weekly newsletter! I’m SUN Chenghao, a fellow with the Center for International Security and Strategy (CISS) at Tsinghua University, Council Member of The Chinese Association of American Studies, a visiting scholar at Paul Tsai China Center of Yale Law School in 2024 and Munich Young Leader 2025.
ChinAffairsplus is a newsletter that shares articles by Chinese academics on topics such as China’s foreign policy, China-U.S. relations, China-Europe relations, and more. This newsletter was co-founded by my research assistant, ZHANG Xueyu, and me.
Through carefully selected Chinese academic articles, we aim to provide you with key insights into the issues that China’s academic and strategic communities are focused on. We will highlight why each article matters and the most important takeaways. Questions and feedback can be addressed to sch0625@gmail.com
Today, we have selected an article written by Zhou Fangyin, which traces the course of U.S. strategic retrenchment and examines its impact on the international order.
Summary
Strategic retrenchment refers to acts in which a major power reduces its grand strategic commitments on the international stage. When a major power faces relative power decline, strategic retrenchment at an appropriate level helps better align strategic goals with available resources. For more than a decade starting with the Obama administration, the U.S. has implemented strategic retrenchment, with complex implications. To accurately understand the nature and characteristics of U.S. strategic retrenchment, a comprehensive assessment must be conducted from four dimensions: military investment and overseas military intervention, alliance management, diplomatic strategy adjustment, and domestic economic policy reform.
U.S. strategic retrenchment has had significant implications for the international order: the U.S.-led liberal international order has shown signs of instability; international strategic relations have undergone reconfiguration, with the U.S.-led alliance system facing a major transformation; imbalances in regional power structures have intensified turbulence in the international system; pan-securitization has taken hold in the international community; and increasingly domestic-oriented U.S. foreign policy has heightened the instability of the international order.
Why it matters
On December 4, 2025, the White House officially released its new National Security Strategy—a landmark document that signals a profound strategic shift from global hegemonic ambition to “core interest-first” pragmatism, with the Western Hemisphere as a key pillar. This shift has sent ripples across the globe, reshaping strategic calculations for allies, competitors, and regional powers alike. As international audiences struggle to navigate the complexities of U.S. policy adjustments, this article offers indispensable insights from a prominent Chinese scholar.
The article helps readers move beyond surface-level observations, such as rhetorical tweaks in China-U.S. relations or tensions within transatlantic partnerships, to grasp the underlying drivers of U.S. strategic retrenchment: constrained national strength amid great-power competition, pressing domestic economic imperatives, and a deliberate recalibration of competitive priorities. By unpacking how this retrenchment redefines the rules of great-power engagement, reshapes risk assessments for states worldwide, and exacerbates fragmentation in regional power structures, the article equips readers to better understand an increasingly fragmented international order. For policymakers, scholars, and anyone tracking global dynamics, it provides a timely, non-Western lens to decode the continuity beneath U.S. policy fluctuations and anticipate the future trajectory of global governance.
Key Points
1. Strategic Retrenchment: Definition, Obstacles and Measurement
(1) Definition of Strategic Retrenchment: Cost Cutting & Resource Reallocation
Strategic retrenchment refers to a behavior in which major powers reduce their strategic commitments in international affairs. It usually occurs against the backdrop of a major power’s relative power decline, where its economic and military strength gradually becomes insufficient for supporting its original foreign policy goals. It usually involves the readjustment of strategic goals and priorities, the reclassification of core and secondary regions, and the reallocation of strategic resources internationally. As a policy choice that adapts to changes in the power structure, strategic retrenchment can often bring significant benefits to the states that implement it.
The fundamental characteristic of strategic retrenchment lies in the “deliberate reduction of overall foreign policy costs.” It often exhibits a mixed nature of advancing in some areas while retreating in others, making it prone to confusion with a general “shift of strategic focus.” Unlike a pure retrenchment strategy, strategic retrenchment uses retrenchment as a means to realign national capabilities with national objectives. Such retrenchment is inherently irreversible—if a state can re-engage in a withdrawn area immediately or without incurring substantial costs, the withdrawal cannot be regarded as meaningful.
(2) Obstacles of Strategic Retrenchment: Inevitable Chaos
From a practical perspective, strategic retrenchment is difficult to manage and is prone to causing a certain degree of policy disarray. First, such retrenchment sends signals to other states, which may give rise to unexpected risks. Second, when a major power conducts strategic retrenchment in certain regions, this may create a power vacuum in said region and spur potential rivals or other forces to fill that void, leading to regional instability. Third, strategic retrenchment leaves national leaders of major powers vulnerable to attacks from their domestic political opponents.
(3) Standards for Determining Major Powers’ Strategic Retrenchment
U.S. strategic retrenchment has now been ongoing for more than a decade. This article will analyze the manifestations of U.S. strategic retrenchment during different presidential terms from four dimensions: military investment and overseas military intervention; alliance relationship management; diplomatic strategy; domestic economy.
2. Strategic Retrenchment During Trump 1.0
(1) Military Input & Overseas Intervention
The governance of the Trump administration was marked by a prominent “America First” ideology. The Trump administration undertook multiple initiatives to curtail overseas military commitments and exhibited a clear inclination toward strategic retrenchment, yet U.S. military expenditure during this period increased. Notably, the Trump administration was highly cautious about overseas military interventions and made efforts to withdraw military forces from overseas. These facts indicate that while conducting strategic retrenchment, the U.S. government continued to emphasize maintaining a strong military capability to preserve U.S. superiority over major competitors.
(2) Alliance Management
Trump applied a diplomatic style featuring transactionalism to U.S. allies. He leveraged allies’ asymmetric dependence on the U.S. to exert pressure on them, which eroded the credibility of U.S. commitments to safeguarding its allies’ security. He demanded that allies assume greater defense responsibilities in security, raised the proportion of defense cost-sharing, and sought to secure greater economic benefits from allies.
(3) Diplomatic Strategy Adjustment
Trump’s foreign policy reduced participation in international affairs, notably withdrawing from a series of international organizations and arrangements. Meanwhile, the Trump administration identified China as its primary strategic competitor and squeezed China’s strategic space from multiple dimensions, leading to a significant deterioration of relations between the two states.
(4) Domestic Economic Policy Transformation
Trump emphasized the importance of manufacturing, attached great importance to traditional industries such as steel and energy, and actively attracted high-tech enterprises including within the semiconductor industry and liquid crystal panel industry to invest and establish factories in the U.S. His policies drove U.S. economic growth in the short term, but their effectiveness weakened later.
3. Strategic Retrenchment During the Biden Administration
(1) Military Input & Overseas Intervention
During the Biden era, military expenditure as a proportion of GDP dropped to the lowest level since the War on Terror. The Biden administration was also highly cautious about overseas military interventions, completed the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, and significantly reduced military intervention in Middle Eastern affairs.
(2) Alliance Management
The Biden administration’s approach of requiring its allies to assume greater defense responsibilities and increase their share of costs is generally consistent with expectations of strategic retrenchment. However, this administration did not reduce its security commitments to allies; instead, to a certain extent repaired the relations with allies that were damaged during Trump 1.0.
(3) Diplomatic Strategy Adjustment
The Biden administration sought to ease relations with secondary adversaries such as Iran and North Korea, and attempted to stabilize relations with Russia. It aimed to concentrate strategic resources on containing China by reducing resource investment in other regions. However, the subsequent outbreaks of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Middle East crisis made it difficult for the administration to achieve the goal of cutting resource inputs into Europe and the Middle East. Overall, Biden’s policies here were consistent with the requirements of strategic retrenchment.
(4) Domestic Economic Policy Transformation
The Biden administration attached great importance to infrastructure development, emphasizing that against the backdrop of great-power competition, it had to reshape and strengthen America’s own economic fundamentals. This is because in a phase of strategic retrenchment, a major power’s domestic economic base is insufficient to underpin its international ambitions. However, large-scale investment in infrastructure development has also widened the imbalance in fiscal revenue and expenditure, leading to a further rise in U.S. federal debt.
4. Strategic Retrenchment During Trump 2.0
(1) Military Input & Overseas Intervention
Trump’s increase in military spending during his second term has, to a certain extent, deviated from the behavioral expectations of a state pursuing strategic retrenchment. It reveals his obsession with maintaining the preeminent military status of the U.S., which is closely linked to his international approach of bullying the weak. After all, a robust military capability serves as a critical material foundation for the U.S. to impose its hegemonic policies on other states.
In terms of overseas military interventions, Trump’s efforts to facilitate peace talks between Russia and Ukraine align with the demands of strategic retrenchment. While his military strikes against Iran and the Houthi armed forces have diverged from typical strategic retrenchment—reflecting the opportunistic nature and a degree of adventurism in his foreign policy—his resolute measures to cut losses are consistent with the requirements of strategic retrenchment.
(2) Alliance Management
With Trump’s return to power, U.S. relations with its allies—which had been strengthened during the Biden administration—have once again been impacted. The Trump administration has undermined the credibility of its security commitments to allies, demanded that they assume greater responsibilities in security, and imposed inequitable economic policies on them.
(3) Diplomatic Strategy Adjustment
During his second term, Trump has exhibited a tendency to reduce participation in certain aspects of international affairs and curtail investment in some regions. Currently, U.S. policy toward China has displayed complexity, with a greater focus on economic protectionism and reducing U.S. dependence on China. Up to July 2025, the foreign policy of Trump 2.0 has shown a willingness to ease relations with secondary adversaries; Trump has no intention of intervening deeply in international affairs in other regions unless they bring direct benefits to the U.S. Regarding Trump’s policies toward China, perhaps due to the fact that his second term only commenced at the beginning of the year, the U.S. has not yet significantly withdrawn resources from other regions to concentrate on targeting China. Instead, it has displayed policy flexibility toward China.
(4) Domestic Economic Policy Transformation
During its first year, the second Trump administration has implemented a series of reform measures on domestic economy. On the one hand, it has pushed for cuts to government spending with considerable intensity and reformed government agencies; on the other hand, the government has promoted the reshoring of manufacturing through various means, seeking to strengthen the foundation of the U.S. domestic economy.
5. The Evolution of International Order Under U.S. Strategic Retrenchment
(1) The Irreversible Erosion of the Liberal International Order
For a period after WWII, the U.S. served as the founder and leader of the liberal international order. With its relative decline, the U.S. is no longer willing to bear the costs of sustaining this order. China is not yet capable of exerting global leadership, while the material capabilities of other states also make it difficult for them to assume such a leadership position. Consequently, the international system will witness a leadership vacuum for a long period to come. As to whether the liberal international order can be revitalized, it is hard to provide a definitive answer at present.
(2) The U.S. Alliance System Faces Transformation
U.S. strategic retrenchment is not a simple withdrawal of power, nor does it mean abandoning global hegemony. Instead, it involves reprioritizing strategic tasks and conducting more effective resource allocation accordingly. First, the U.S. has identified China as its primary competitor. Second, the U.S. relations with its allies have undergone in-depth adjustments. Some allies’ desire for strategic autonomy has grown, with the EU being particularly prominent. However, due to the long-standing asymmetric dependency on the U.S., most allies lack the capacity for security self-help amid a turbulent international situation, and are still far from achieving true strategic autonomy.
(3) The Adjustment of the International System and Turbulence in the International Situation
Against the backdrop of U.S. strategic retrenchment, various forces are competing for dominance over regional affairs, pursuing their own interests amid evolving regional dynamics. As a result, disputes have been on the rise in the European periphery and the Middle East. On the one hand, none of these forces holds an absolute dominant position in these conflicts; on the other hand, while pursuing limited retrenchment, the U.S. still seeks to influence these regional affairs. Additionally, coupled with complex historical and realistic factors as well as the weakened binding force of international institutions, the number of large-scale armed conflicts has increased, their duration has lengthened, and some conflicts have even spilled over on a large scale.
(4) Challenging International Concepts, Giving Rise to the “Pan-Securitization” Phenomenon
Changes in U.S. behavior were particularly evident during the first Trump administration. Trump advocated the “America First” doctrine, adopting a transactional style in his foreign policy. He abandoned the values of freedom, democracy, and human rights that the U.S. had long upheld, and blatantly pursued power politics. As the world’s most powerful state, U.S. behavior exerts a strong demonstration effect internationally. Consequently, changes in U.S. behavior have accelerated the evolution of the international community toward an anarchic systemic culture.
(5) The ‘Domestication’ of U.S. Diplomacy and Rising Instability in the International Order
On the one hand, the U.S. increasingly emphasizes enhancing its own capabilities to uphold its leadership position globally; on the other hand, the polarization of U.S. domestic politics is more clearly reflected in its foreign policy, with U.S. diplomatic behaviors exhibiting more distinct partisan features. The consequence of this is that the U.S. is unwilling to exercise necessary restraint to safeguard its international image and the seriousness of its international commitments, and may even adopt diplomatic practices that incur only costs without yielding any benefits. Some foreign policies have lost stability and continuity, undermining international cooperation between other countries and the U.S. Given the global influence of the U.S., this has also become a key source of instability in the international order.
Conclusion
Since 2009, the U.S has undergone a long period of strategic retrenchment, with distinct characteristics manifesting across different administrations. The Obama administration carried out resolute retrenchment, redirecting U.S. strategic resources to be concentrated in the Asia-Pacific region. The first Trump administration’s retrenchment was marked by isolationist tendencies, it pursued material interests at the expense of the U.S.’ international image and its relations with allies. The Biden administration, while maintaining a stance of strategic retrenchment, preserved its alliances to an extent.
America’s strategic retrenchment has undermined the liberal international order it once led, driven the transformation of alliance relations, exacerbated imbalances in regional power structures, and exerted an impact on international norms. This has also led to the persistent spread of the “pan-securitization”. In addition, the growing trend of the ‘domestication’ of U.S. foreign policy has further heightened the instability of the international order.
About the Author
Zhou Fangyin周方银：Dr. Zhou is a Professor at the School of International Relations, Sun Yat-sen University. Having published over 100 academic papers in both Chinese and English, he serves as a member of the editorial board for numerous SSCI and CSSCI-indexed journals, such as The Chinese Journal of International Politics, Journal of Contemporary Asia-Pacific Studies, Foreign Affairs Review, Journal of International Political Science, Pacific Journal, Asia-Pacific Security and Maritime Affairs, and Contemporary American Review.
About the Publication
The Chinese version of this article was published in Foreign Affairs Review（《外交评论》）. Launched by China Foreign Affairs University，affiliated with Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1984, it covers topics such as international relations, Chinese diplomacy, diplomatic studies, international economics and law, and academic trends. The journal is a bimonthly publication and serves as a platform for scholarly articles related to international affairs, aimed at academic institutions, foreign affairs departments, libraries, and research institutions.
