Donald Trump has once again brought “peace through strength” into the national spotlight as a defining element of his approach to foreign policy. By invoking this phrase, the former president situates himself within a lineage of leaders who have relied on this concept to signal a commitment to military might as a path to global stability.
The phrase, popularized during the Cold War by Ronald Reagan, was also echoed by realpolitik advocate Henry Kissinger and has origins tracing back to Roman strategists. But whether Trump is reviving this phrase as a serious strategic framework or leveraging it for rhetorical impact is a matter of intense debate.
The concept of “peace through strength” is deeply rooted in history. Roman military strategist Vegetius succinctly articulated the philosophy in his fourth-century AD treatise: “If you want peace, prepare for war.” The Roman emperor Hadrian embodied this principle by building defensive structures such as Hadrian’s Wall to secure the empire’s borders.
In modern times, Reagan championed “peace through strength” during his presidency (1981–1989), significantly increasing defense spending. Reagan’s strategy involved military posturing that many credit with bringing the Soviet Union to the negotiating table. Reagan balanced this strength with diplomacy, culminating in arms reduction agreements with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.
Kissinger, another key figure in American foreign policy, invoked the phrase as part of his pragmatically realist approach to securing U.S. interests during the Cold War. The phrase has since become a mantra for leaders aiming to emphasize robust defense policies without necessarily advocating for endless warfare.
Trump’s version of “peace through strength” appears to incorporate elements of both Reagan and Kissinger’s legacies. During his recent announcements of key appointees, including Secretary of State-designate Marco Rubio, Trump reiterated the need for a strong military while promising to avoid unnecessary wars. Yet, he has not elaborated on how he intends to balance these objectives.
Observers note the potential contradictions in Trump’s rhetoric. On one hand, he vows to rapidly build U.S. military capabilities; on the other, he emphasizes withdrawing from costly conflicts, such as the two-decade war in Afghanistan. While Trump has criticized the Biden administration’s military policies, he has not detailed specific plans for engaging adversaries like China or Russia beyond broad declarations of strength.
Since Trump’s resurgence on the political stage, the phrase “peace through strength” has resonated far beyond U.S. borders. In Ukraine, where the war against Russia continues, the term has been co-opted with a markedly different connotation. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently invoked the concept to underscore the necessity of steadfast international military support.
Trump, however, has suggested leveraging U.S. military aid to force a compromise between Kyiv and Moscow. The $60 billion in military support provided by President Joe Biden to Ukraine is viewed by Trump as a bargaining chip. This stance has alarmed Zelensky, who has warned against any concessions that would undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty.
“The concept of ‘peace through strength’ has proven its realism and effectiveness more than once,” Zelensky stated in a recent speech. “Now, it is needed once more.” Zelensky’s interpretation of the phrase emphasizes unyielding resistance to aggression, contrasting with Trump’s potential willingness to negotiate terms that could favor Moscow.
Trump’s former National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien has provided more insight into how “peace through strength” might shape a potential second Trump term. Writing in Foreign Affairs, O’Brien outlined a vision of confronting China as the foremost adversary. He proposed rapid military build-ups across the Indo-Pacific region, including the deployment of the entire U.S. Marine Corps to counter China’s influence.
O’Brien painted Trump as a “peacemaker,” citing the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, and the 2020 agreement with the Taliban that ended U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan. However, critics argue that these initiatives, while significant, left unresolved challenges. For instance, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan paved the way for the Taliban’s swift return to power, raising questions about the long-term impact of such deals.
Domestically, “peace through strength” is a politically potent slogan. Few Americans would publicly oppose peace, and the idea of strength appeals to a broad spectrum of voters. Trump’s critics, however, warn that the slogan risks becoming an oversimplification of complex geopolitical realities.
George Beebe, director of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft’s grand strategy program, believes Trump’s team is serious about incorporating the philosophy into policy. “This is probably more than just a buzzword,” Beebe said. Yet, he cautioned that achieving the balance Reagan struck—combining military buildup with diplomatic outreach—will be crucial.
“Too much emphasis on diplomacy can embolden adversaries,” Beebe noted. “Conversely, too much focus on strength can escalate tensions, leading to conflict rather than peace.”
Jacob Stokes, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, argued that translating “peace through strength” into effective foreign policy will be challenging. He pointed out that Trump’s previous term often strained U.S. alliances, particularly in Europe and Asia.
“Even if Trump builds the military, questioning alliances like NATO diminishes the United States’ strategic advantage,” Stokes said. He also warned against cutting off military aid to Ukraine, which could undermine the strength aspect of the equation while achieving only a tenuous peace.
Stokes highlighted another pitfall: the assumption that demonstrations of military might automatically translate into peace. “International politics is more complicated than that,” he said. “It’s a great political slogan, but implementing it as foreign policy is a substantial challenge.”
For Trump to succeed in revitalizing “peace through strength,” his approach must address the nuances of modern geopolitics. Reagan’s success lay in his ability to use military buildup as a tool to compel negotiation, not as an end in itself. Critics argue that Trump’s impulsive style and transactional view of alliances could undermine efforts to achieve a similar balance.
Beebe underscored the need for strategic restraint. “The key is finding the right calibration. Strength must be credible, but it also must be coupled with smart diplomacy to create lasting stability.”
Whether Trump’s iteration of “peace through strength” will emerge as a coherent strategy or remain a catchy slogan is yet to be seen. As Trump’s political future unfolds, his ability to articulate and implement a consistent foreign policy will determine whether this phrase carries the weight of historical precedent or fades into rhetorical history.
With challenges ranging from managing relations with NATO allies to countering China’s assertiveness, Trump’s approach will require more than rhetoric to navigate the complexities of the global stage. The promise of peace through strength—if achieved—could bolster U.S. leadership, but the risks of miscalculation remain ever-present.
For now, “peace through strength” serves as a rallying cry, one that resonates both with Trump’s base and a nation grappling with its role in an increasingly volatile world. Whether it delivers lasting peace or further strife will depend on the delicate interplay of strength and strategy.
