MAGA Isn’t De-Globalization. It’s The Only Globalization Strategy That Still Works

For years, critics have lazily described Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” agenda as de-globalization — a retreat from the world, a rejection of trade, an inward turn. That charge is not merely wrong. It is intellectually dishonest.

MAGA is not a de-globalization policy. It is the most realistic globalization strategy the United States has pursued in decades.

What Trump rejected was not global engagement, but a failed model of globalization that stripped America of leverage while empowering strategic competitors — most notably China — and left U.S. allies and partners unsure of who was actually setting the rules.

America First doesn’t mean America alone.

For 30 years, Washington sold globalization as inevitable, benign, and mutually beneficial. Open markets would lead to open societies. Supply chains would produce stability. Cheap goods would substitute for strategy. Instead, the United States deindustrialized, China weaponized trade, and critical supply chains — from semiconductors to rare earths to antimony and graphite — migrated offshore.

This was not globalization in the abstract. It was globalization without reciprocity, enforcement, or national purpose. America played by the rules. Others rewrote them.

Trump was the first major political figure willing to say out loud what was already obvious: globalization that weakens the United States is not global leadership — it is national negligence.

Under MAGA, globalization was not abandoned. It was reconditioned.

Tariffs were not ideological; they were leverage. Trade agreements were not scrapped; they were renegotiated. Alliances were not dissolved; they were forced to become reciprocal. This was not isolationism. It was power-aware globalization.

The premise was simple: if the United States provides access to its market, its technology, and its security umbrella, then it is entitled to fairness, resilience, and strategic return. That is not radical. It is how every serious country operates — especially China.

Nowhere is the bankruptcy of the old model clearer than in Africa. For decades, the West preached open markets while China built closed systems, locking up minerals, ports, railways, and power generation through state-backed financing and long-term offtake agreements. The result is that today’s energy transition — so central to Western climate ambitions — depends on supply chains Beijing heavily influences or controls.

MAGA’s worldview recognizes this reality. It treats critical minerals as strategic assets, not just commodities. It understands that Africa is not a charity case; it is a geopolitical arena. Engagement under MAGA is not about slogans or conferences. It is about bankable projects, secure supply chains, and enforceable partnerships—the kind African governments increasingly say they want, and the kind China has delivered with ruthless clarity.

Critics often conflate nationalism with isolationism. That confusion is convenient — and dangerous. Strategic nationalism is not withdrawal from the world. It is the precondition for effective engagement with it.

Strategic nationalism begins with uncomfortable truths: supply chains are weapons; industrial capacity is national security; market access is leverage, not an entitlement. A country that cannot produce steel, process minerals, or manufacture at scale does not lead the global economy. It services it.

MAGA rejects the fantasy that America can remain powerful while outsourcing its foundations.

The real choice facing the United States is not globalization versus MAGA. It is control versus collapse. The world is not de-globalizing; it is fragmenting, securitizing, and regionalizing. Every major power understands this — China, Russia, and increasingly the Global South — except those still clinging to a status quo that already failed.

MAGA is not a retreat from the world. It is a demand to engage it from a position of strength rather than dependency. That is not nostalgia. It is realism.

And in a world defined by minerals, manufacturing, and power, it may be America’s last chance to get globalization right.

James Carter is a Principal with Navigators Global. He previously served as Deputy Undersecretary for International Affairs at the U.S. Department of Labor (2006-07) and as the Director of the America First Policy Institute’s Center for American Prosperity (2021-23). Jacob Choe is a member of the Bretton Woods Committee and serves as the Eurasia Center’s Asia Program Director.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.