Both Trump administrations carried a simple foreign-policy slogan: America First. What has been far less clear is whether America First ever translated into a single, coherent foreign policy. A stronger argument is that President Donald Trump presided over several foreign policies at once—often competing with one another—shaped not by institutional process or interagency discipline, but by personal access, ideological rivalry, and parallel power centers orbiting the president.
Early critics warned that America First would revive the isolationism of the original World War II–era movement of the same name. That did not happen. The Trump administrations did not retreat from the world; they engaged it aggressively, unpredictably, sometimes even confrontationally. The isolationists in the modern “America First” movement failed to get their way, but two distinct camps DID emerge, and their differences can be most clearly understood by contrasting Marco Rubio and Tom Barrack.
Rubio represents a grand strategy that can be understood by the rest of the world — it may be more hawkish, less restrained, and even more nationalist and Christian-centric than what the international community has come to expect from the United States, but whatever anxiety the Rubio worldview causes in foreign capitals is not because of unpredictability. Indeed, even as the Secretary adapted his rhetoric to populist instincts of the MAGA base, his approach is remarkably similar to what he espoused as a Senator. Rubio has emphasized confronting adversaries such as Iran and China, reinforcing U.S. credibility with long-standing partners, protecting Christian minorities, and not shying away from using force and seeking regime change.
Barrack is the embodiment of what many label President Trump’s “transactional” foreign policy. A longtime Trump confidant and billionaire investor, he has executed his responsibilities — as US Ambassador to Turkey and United States Special Envoy for both Syria and Iraq — not according to doctrine but with a short term deal making approach heavily dependent on relationships. His preference for adaptability over strategy favors those who have the upper hand at this point in time; has resulted in both inconsistency (over the protection of Christians or disinterest in nation building) and the open betrayal of partners (the Kurds). In the short term, Barrack can claim that he has helped President Trump advance his “peace agenda,” but the context has been set for a proxy war or even a direct clash between Israel and Turkey in Syria and increased threats for minorities in Syria as the “reformed” jihadist Al-Sharaa / Jolani regime consolidates power.
Who has the upper hand?
When news leaked that Marco Rubio was Trump’s choice for Secretary of State, he faced sharp skepticism from MAGA activists who viewed him as part of the neoconservative and elite camps they wanted to disrupt. That tension eased over time as Rubio recalibrated his message, embraced economic and cultural nationalism, and emerged as a leading voice on China, Iran, and religious freedom. This “evolution” and the fact that he kept “winning” made him a favorite of President Trump.
Tom Barrack’s trajectory inside the MAGA ecosystem was different. His relationship to Trump and reputation as a dealmaker overshadowed his deep ties to Gulf capitals and elite international networks that MAGA voters distrusted. As long as Barrack’s role remained opaque and outcomes could be framed as short-term wins, the disconnect was manageable. Once his policy choices became visible, it was not.
The abandonment of the Kurds, the deprioritization of minority—especially Druze and Christians—protections, the downplaying of Israel’s concerns in Syria, and the willingness to engage a “reformed” jihadist leadership in Damascus triggered alarm bells. And the alarm was expressed most sharply not by critics of the Trump Administration, but by prominent MAGA media figures. Laura Loomer has called for Barrack’s removal from diplomatic roles, arguing that “for the sake of U.S. national security, Tom Barrack should face immediate removal,” and charging that his posture “has cost lives and eroded America’s moral standing,” while posing “a threat to U.S. national security and all non-Muslim religious minorities.” Mark Levin has been even more caustic, condemning Barrack’s criticism of Israeli actions in Syria as reckless and warning that “this kind of public positioning gives aid and comfort to murderers,” while accusing him of legitimizing actors tied to “ISIS veterans who are slaughtering Druze and other minorities.”
Barrack’s standing with Trump did not suffer as a result of these policy critiques, but now he finds himself in the midst of a far more explosive issue for the MAGA base: the controversy over Jeffrey Epstein. Revelations that Barrack remained in consistent and frequent communication with Epstein after the former’s 2008 conviction exposes him to the wider MAGA base. Reporting makes clear that these records do not establish criminal wrongdoing or policy misconduct. But in a movement defined by skepticism of elite impunity, perception matter. Tom Barrack and Jeffrey Epstein were close, and their communications are not easily dismissible as “innocent.”
*Endy Zemenides, Executive Director of the Hellenic American Leadership Council (HALC)
