America First, at its core, is a call to prioritize domestic concerns before international obligations—a belief that, while appealing to many as a bulwark of national sovereignty, ultimately inflicts hidden costs and disproportionately harms the average American. America First has had significant implications for numerous campaigns, policies, and rhetoric throughout American politics, from the America First Committee to President Woodrow Wilson, and most notably, President Donald Trump.
For example, during Wilson’s 1916 campaign, he pledged to keep America neutral by prioritizing domestic policies to strengthen the American economy, security, and society, so that, in time, the U.S. would be in a better position to support global peace. Rather than pursuing an interventionist policy during World War I, he believed, “Let us think of America before we think of Europe, in order that America may be fit to be Europe’s friend when the day of tested friendship comes”.
Wilson’s America First policies aimed to strengthen American resolve, as most Americans disagreed with sending troops into foreign conflicts without a strong justification. During this shift in policy towards domestic affairs, substantial reforms were implemented, including the establishment of the Federal Reserve and the enactment of numerous antitrust laws. On the other hand, Wilson’s approach to America First nurtured an isolationist mindset that, over time, undermined U.S. preparedness for a rapidly globalizing world. In this historical context, the America First approach not only shielded domestic interests but also drew citizens into neglecting the strategic benefits of international engagement, setting a highly isolationist precedent that left them disproportionately vulnerable to economic stagnation and external trade uncertainties.
Fast forward to today, where the average American now lives in a modern revitalization of America First, best summarized by the repeated use of the slogan ‘America First’ in Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign. President Trump has always aimed to present himself as an ‘America First’ candidate, even from his first election campaign. An article by Jeff Kuhner in the World Tribune was often quoted in his campaign, particularly the excerpt, “a patriot, a nationalist and ultimately, an American, who wants to put his country first.” Trump’s America First is dictated by a bold nationalist agenda that reorients U.S. policy towards empowering domestic industries and security through protectionist trade policy and often drawing back from international commitments—all in the singular pursuit of recentering power on American interests and citizens.
Proponents argue that, on paper, a sole focus on national interests would only benefit the average American, as domestic producers would hire more workers, prices could lower due to deregulation and tax cuts, and a strengthened military would provide greater security. However, beneath this veneer is a reality that, in truth, disproportionately harms the average American by undermining critical channels of international cooperation and economic opportunity.
Firstly, Trump’s America First policy has eroded local economies, making it notably worse for cities that depend on tourism for economic growth. International visitation in 2025 plummeted by 9.4% below the forecasts of the World Travel & Tourism Council, with several of American markets suffering from dramatic falls: leisure travel from Canada dropped by up to 40%, European tourism declined by 17%, and air arrivals from Mexico by 23%, These declines in tourism and not merely statistical—this data correlates to the broader trend of potential economic decline, in particular, the total decline in tourism translates to around $18 billion in lost revenue, severely impacting small businesses, hotels, restaurants, and transportation services. The Trump administration is deterring international visitors through stricter immigration controls, protectionist trade measures, and an isolationist foreign policy, not only raising travel costs and complicating entry for international visitors but also reducing the appeal of American tourism.
To cities like Orlando, Miami, and Las Vegas, the reduction of the American tourism industry will harm local services and citizens. The decline in tourism affects local economies that rely on tourism-generated tax revenue to sustain essential infrastructure, such as schools and community programs. Without the benefits of tourism, tourism-dependent regions will experience budget shortfalls, which directly affect the average American by decreasing the standard of living and exacerbating existing inequalities in communities through reduced local capacities.
Secondly, America First, as implemented by President Donald Trump, will continue to disrupt global trade networks and trigger economic uncertainty that could outweigh the benefits of prioritizing economic growth. Contrary to Wilson’s approach to America First, which viewed protectionism and domestic reform as a temporary measure before reengaging with the international world, Trump’s approach adopts an immediate, unilateral stance. President Trump has long been an advocate for reducing America’s reliance on importing goods and addressing its trade deficit. Driven by the need to reduce the trade deficit, his administration imposed a minimum 10% tariff on all U.S. imports, with higher tariffs applied to countries with the most significant trade imbalances, such as China, Canada, and Mexico. Trump justifies this attack on global trade by declaring that “chronic trade deficits are a national emergency” and that his administration only delivered on his promise of ‘America First,’ as his policies are grounded in the belief of promoting the interests of the United States first.
However, the repercussions of this approach are severe. Projections indicate imports could fall by $542 billion in 2025, while retaliatory tariffs from affected countries could reduce U.S. GDP by 0.7%. In particular, Chinese retaliatory measures are expected to cut U.S. soybean exports by 20%, a downturn that forces farmers to rely on government subsidies or, worse, lay off workers to offset losses. Therefore, the collapse in demand for soybeans and other agricultural products would significantly undercut the economy, with Chinese agricultural imports from the U.S. estimated to decline by $700 million. Trump has also claimed to be putting ‘America First’ by preferentially treating American farmers through enhanced taxpayer subsidies, up to $28 billion in 2025, almost doubling the pre-tariff amount. He indicated that similar measures may be taken to support American agricultural production amidst retaliatory tariffs, though this will be unsustainable in the long run due to the trade war.
Moreover, Trump’s has imposed tariffs of 25% on all steel and aluminium imports due to these raw materials being foundational to defense, infrastructure, and key manufacturing sectors, and he argued that shielding domestic producers from cheap imports would preserve American independence in industry. With steel and aluminum costs rising by 15%, metal-dependent manufacturing industries have experienced significant job losses as demand for metal materials has plummeted following the price increase. Given that steel and aluminum prices are being inflated, this is passed down to the average American in the form of higher prices for everything from cars to appliances to home construction.
Still, Trump believes he prioritizes the American people throughout this increasingly escalating trade war. He states, “We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism.” He argues that protectionist policies promote domestic production by strengthening the competitiveness of American industries and workers. However, economic analyses have shown that higher consumer costs and layoffs in key sectors have led to economic instability for the average American, who is expected to pay $2,200 more per year due to tariffs under Trump’s policies.
Domestically, Trump’s ‘America First’ policies could prompt American businesses and policymakers to question the country’s next steps in a rapidly changing and highly uncertain economic landscape. Internationally, supply chains built around specialization and globalization would be disrupted in the crossfire of increasing protectionist policies by China, the EU, and Canada against American policies. Proponents of ‘America First’ argue that without the added global economies of scale, American producers would be forced to invest in American production and workers, benefiting the average American by refocusing the economy from international competition to American competition. Theoretically, this would increase local job opportunities in the long run, as producers pivot from imports to domestic production, requiring American workers to fill specialized roles in the ‘new Golden Age of American industrialization and prosperity.’
Of course, ‘America First’ opponents, like Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, argue that protectionist trade policies are almost surely inflationary. He contends that the trade war will disrupt established supply chains and raise production costs, eventually passing these costs on to the average American in the form of higher expenses, reduced disposable income, and job losses. Although President Trump campaigned on the promise to ‘put America First,’ it seems likely that this vision of national renewal is instead sowing the seeds of division as ‘America First’ disproportionately harms the average American at the expense of nationalism and pursuing balanced trade.
Written by Kristy Chan
