One of the most persistent mischaracterizations in today’s foreign policy debate is the claim that advocates of a restrained U.S. foreign policy are “isolationists.” This label is not only inaccurate, it’s also dishonest. Restraint is not about withdrawing from the world. It’s about expanding the toolkit, restoring capacity, and engaging the world more effectively.

Restraint is not about retreat; it’s about realism and the ability to see the world as it is, rather than as we’d like it to be. It’s about using America’s vast power carefully and deliberately, recognizing that military force should be a last resort, not a habitual first option. Restrainers believe in maintaining a powerful military, one capable of deterring adversaries and defending core U.S. interests. But we reject the idea that America must police the world or entangle itself in conflicts that do not serve our national interest.

Isolationism, by definition, is a policy of abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations. That is not what restrainers advocate. We do not call for the United States to avoid all alliances or disengage from international politics, cultural exchange, and commercial relations. On the contrary, we believe in robust diplomacy, strategic trade, and international cooperation where it serves American interests. We recognize that alliances are tools — means of ensuring security, not ends in and of themselves — and should be evaluated based on whether they advance U.S. security and prosperity.

Critics often pretend that the only alternative to constant military engagement is naive disengagement. This is a false choice. Restraint offers a third path: an approach grounded in prudence, strategic clarity, and a sober understanding of the limits of military power to shape political outcomes abroad.

The central question for any foreign policy should be this: Does it serve the interests of the American people? Americans are safest and freest in a peaceful world, where nations respect the sovereignty of their neighbors and uphold individual liberty. That vision doesn’t require endless wars. To the contrary, long wars cost lives, warp our constitutional governance, and drain America’s resources. An alternative approach requires principled leadership that emphasizes example over imposition, partnership over coercion, and peace over permanent conflict.

Restraint is not a radical departure from tradition. In fact, it’s becoming a mainstream position — supported by many Republicans, libertarians, and even some Democrats. It’s consistent with the instincts of a public weary of open-ended wars and skeptical of Washington’s hubris. It reflects a broad, bipartisan recognition that foreign policy must be grounded in realism, not idealism, symbolism, or vacant moralizing.

In recent years, efforts to smear restraint as isolationism have become more desperate, particularly from corners of the foreign policy establishment that view militarism as a default setting. But the American people know better. They know that a restrained foreign policy isn’t about doing less — it’s about doing what matters and doing it well.

So when someone asks, “Are you an isolationist?” the answer is simple: No. We are realists. We are restrainers. We believe America must lead with wisdom, not force. In a manner befitting our constitutional republic. And with the courage to say “Enough.”

Learn more about Stand Together’s foreign policy efforts and explore ways you can partner with us.