💰 Is It Truly America First? Unpacking the Debate Over the President's Priorities, Billionaire Allies, and Global Dictator Buddies

The phrase "America First" is the definitive rallying cry of the current administration, a pledge to dismantle globalist policies and prioritize the interests of the American citizen and the national economy above all else. Yet, since the start of 2025, this guiding principle has been scrutinized by critics who question whether the resulting policies truly serve the average American or if they disproportionately benefit a small circle of billionaires, corporate allies, and preferred international strongmen.

This debate is not about the slogan itself, but about the tangible outcomes in three key areas: economic policy, the restructuring of federal government, and foreign alliances.

1. The "America First" Case: National Sovereignty and Economic Protection

Proponents of the administration's agenda point to specific policies as proof that American interests are paramount:

Trade Protectionism: The immediate imposition of new and increased tariffs on imported goods from key partners like China, the European Union, and Japan is framed as correcting decades of unfair trade practices. Supporters argue these tariffs force foreign nations to negotiate reciprocal trade deals, thus protecting American manufacturing jobs and encouraging domestic production. The goal is a truly independent American economy.

Energy and Environment: Actions to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, maximize domestic oil and gas production, and rapidly eliminate green energy subsidies are justified as freeing American businesses from costly regulations and eliminating reliance on foreign adversaries for energy supply chains. This is presented as prioritizing economic growth and energy independence over international mandates.

Border Enforcement: The expansion of deportation operations and the use of the National Guard for border security are defended as critical measures to uphold national sovereignty, protecting American communities from criminal elements and stabilizing the labor market for native-born workers.

2. The Critics' View: Billionaire Allies and Selective Deregulation

Critics argue that the economic policies are not a win for the working class, but a massive transfer of wealth and power to the administration’s donor class.

Financial Advantage: Policies like corporate deregulation and existing tax structures are often cited as overwhelmingly favoring large corporations and the wealthiest citizens. Critics argue that while the "America First" rhetoric is populist, the underlying policy framework serves to further concentrate wealth, contradicting the promise to prioritize the common citizen.

Corporate Capture of the State: The dismantling of federal departments, such as the proposed closure of the Department of Education, is viewed by opponents as an attack on critical public goods and civil services. Critics suggest this restructuring is driven by a desire to weaken regulatory oversight, benefiting specific industries and political loyalists who seek to limit government accountability.

Targeting of Institutions: Executive orders seeking to end Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs or imposing restrictions on specific university admissions are portrayed as politically motivated actions that create a hostile environment for certain groups of American citizens, diverting resources and attention from core national priorities.

3. The Global Debate: Strongmen vs. Stable Alliances

Perhaps the most potent criticism surrounds the administration’s foreign policy, which critics claim favors transactional relationships with authoritarian leaders—often referred to as "dictator buddies"—at the expense of democratic alliances.

Pragmatism or Endorsement? Critics point to the administration's open admiration for and close engagement with leaders of non-democratic states, arguing that it undermines America's traditional role as a defender of democratic values. This is viewed as ceding global influence and legitimacy.

Undermining Democracy: The administration's skepticism toward traditional military and diplomatic alliances (such as NATO) and international organizations is seen as an active destabilization of the global order that the U.S. helped build. This is viewed as making the world less safe and less stable for American interests in the long term.

Domestic Implications: Opponents further argue that the rhetoric and policies that appear to praise "strongmen" abroad—along with considering the use of emergency powers like the Insurrection Act of 1807 domestically—suggest a pattern of undermining checks and balances at home, raising concerns about the potential for authoritarianism within the U.S. itself.

Conclusion: A Divisive Reality

Ultimately, the question of whether the administration's agenda is "Truly America First" rests on one's definition of "America."

To supporters, it means a sovereign, economically protected, and militarily dominant nation freed from foreign obligations and liberal regulations. To critics, it appears to be a selective prioritization that favors billionaires, corporate wealth, and a small circle of political loyalists, while adopting the political style of global autocrats and eroding the norms that protect the rights of all American citizens.

The clash between these two narratives defines the current political era, leaving citizens to weigh the promised benefits against the perceived costs to the nation's democratic character.