 "(File) US president Donald Trump. Reuters")
Even though the Maga movement often talks loudly about “America First” and says it wants to keep the US out of foreign problems, what it actually does on the world stage is more complicated. President Donald Trump and his deputy Vice President JD Vance often say that wars in places like Gaza and Ukraine are “not America’s wars”.
But in reality, they still get very involved in global affairs—not by sending troops or starting new partnerships, but by interfering through diplomacy, spreading certain narratives and making symbolic gestures. This shows more of an obsession with world events than a true withdrawal from them.
The Maga movement believes in national independence and staying out of other countries’ business. But at the same time, it keeps stepping into the internal politics of other nations—for example, criticising UK leaders over free speech or pressuring South Africa’s president about false claims of genocide. This creates a clear contradiction: while Maga talks about pulling back from the world, its actions show a strong desire to shape other countries based on its own beliefs.
Gaza: Not our war, but always our deal
Trump has insisted that the ongoing conflict in Gaza is not America’s war, and yet the White House under his leadership has leaned heavily into the crisis, not just rhetorically but diplomatically. Trump reportedly expressed intense frustration recently over the Gaza war, viewing it as the final impediment to West Asia peace and prosperity. White House officials described his visible upset at images of Palestinian suffering and his efforts to pressure Israel into opening crossings for humanitarian aid.
Despite the administration’s disavowal of direct involvement, Trump worked actively behind the scenes to influence the conflict’s trajectory. He reportedly urged the Israeli government to “wrap it up” and facilitated a backchannel deal that led to the release of US-Israeli hostage Edan Alexander. His frustration with the stalemate even prompted broader appeals for a ceasefire and post-conflict reconstruction of Gaza. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the president was “working overtime” to resolve both the Gaza and Ukraine conflicts.
So, even though Trump says that the war in Gaza isn’t America’s problem, he still seems to believe that trying to make a peace deal—or at least looking like he is—helps build his image as a key global negotiator. This shows that Maga’s idea of isolationism isn’t really about stepping away from the world. Instead, it’s about carefully choosing when to get involved, mainly in a way that looks good and helps them take credit or control the story, rather than actually trying to bring peace or stability to the region.
Impact Shorts
View AllUkraine: Disengaged, yet deeply involved
Trump has repeatedly said that Ukraine is not America’s war, echoing the MAGA line of distancing from entangling alliances and European squabbles. And yet, the administration’s engagement has hardly resembled detachment.
On May 26, Trump lambasted Vladimir Putin on social media platforms for what he described as the largest drone and missile assault of the Ukraine war, calling the Russian president “absolutely CRAZY” and “playing with fire”. In the same breath, Trump scolded Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, blaming his tone for making matters worse and warning that it “better stop”.
In public and private statements, Trump has straddled a line between peacemaker and critic. Just days before the Russian escalation, he reportedly spent two hours on the phone with Putin, attempting to negotiate a ceasefire. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov acknowledged the US administration’s “emotional” involvement and thanked Trump for pushing peace talks — a curious gesture to someone claiming to disengage.
Trump’s frustration reveals more than just concern. It points to a fixation. His warning that Putin’s escalation could lead to Russia’s downfall, and his floating of new sanctions, show that he remains deeply involved in the conflict’s outcomes, even while insisting it is none of America’s business. The Maga line on Ukraine is not one of classic non-intervention, but rather of frustrated puppeteering: pulling strings without boots on the ground.
The India-Pakistan ceasefire story
Perhaps the most revealing example of Maga’s obsession with foreign entanglements is Trump’s self-proclaimed role in the India-Pakistan ceasefire — a claim India has repeatedly denied.
Trump claimed that the 10 May-ceasefire between India and Pakistan was only achieved after he offered both countries trade access with the US, leveraging tariffs as a diplomatic cudgel to prevent all-out war. His Commerce Secretary Howard W Lutnick repeated the claim as the Trump administration faced legal troubles over domestic policies.
But India strongly rejected these assertions, saying the ceasefire was the result of direct military-to-military negotiations following India’s Operation Sindoor, launched in retaliation for a deadly terror attack in Pahalgam. The Trump administration’s version of events, including its suggestion that trade deals averted catastrophe, was dismissed outright.
The contradiction is telling. The Maga claim about non-interventionism in global affairs crumbles in the face of Trump’s eagerness to take credit for complex foreign events. The India-Pakistan situation is an especially egregious case — not only because Trump’s involvement is disputed, but because it exposes a willingness to distort diplomatic history in service of political theatre. This is less about isolationism and more about inserting America into every international development, whether the facts support it or not.
Myth of the modern isolationist
Ganesh, writing in the Financial Review, questions the idea that Trump is truly an isolationist. During Trump’s first term, the US bombed Syria and killed Iran’s General Qasem Soleimani—clear signs that America was not pulling away from the world. Still, the media often calls him an “isolationist,” maybe because the truth—that the US under Trump became more unpredictable and picked fights in a selective, aggressive way—is harder to define and more uncomfortable to face.
The Maga movement doesn’t want to leave the world stage. Instead, it wants to reshape the world to match its own views. Maga’s energy is often aimed not at foreign enemies, but at people who don’t share its beliefs—including America’s own allies.
It no longer promises to protect Nato countries, but instead criticises European leaders about moral and cultural matters. Trump’s supporters show this clearly. Vance says fights like the one between India and Pakistan are “none of our business,” but still gets involved in issues like free speech in the UK or Christian persecution in Africa.
This isn’t isolationism—it’s a kind of ideological expansion without using the military. The goal isn’t peace by stepping back, but control through stories, influence, and culture wars. Maga’s global interest hides behind an anti-globalist message, but in truth, it wants to change worldwide norms to match its own views—or at least make sure its ideas are heard everywhere.
Tools of soft power
Maga’s interest in foreign policy is mostly focused on influence, not traditional power. The US might not have as much hard power as it once did, but as Ganesh pointed out, it still has the biggest cultural and media platforms in the world. Maga leaders such as Elon Musk (until very recently) and Vance grew up in a time when public commentary and showmanship started to matter more than real diplomacy or long-term strategy.
In their worldview, the main goal isn’t solving problems—it’s about putting on a show. Trump’s efforts to appear as a peace-broker in Gaza, his mixed messages about both Putin and Zelenskyy and even his made-up role in the India-Pakistan ceasefire aren’t really about getting results. They’re about shaping a story or creating one.
Not isolation, but ideological export
Trump’s Maga doctrine is not the return of American isolationism. It is something more erratic and, in many ways, more destabilising. It abandons traditional alliances and commitments but replaces them not with quiet withdrawal, but with symbolic posturing, bombast and unsolicited commentary on the moral fibre of other nations.
In Trump’s second term, the contradiction is sharper than ever. He tells Americans that foreign wars are not their concern, yet cannot resist the temptation to intervene rhetorically, claim victories, assign blame and positions himself as the indispensable figure on the world stage.
This is not a coherent foreign policy. It is a compulsive need to be at the centre of all things global — an America that refuses to lead with responsibility but cannot bear to be left out of the conversation. The Maga movement may talk about pulling back, but in reality, it is more invested in foreign affairs than ever — just not in any way that promotes stability or truth.