On December 11th, 2025, WorldBoston hosted Dr. Michael Poznansky for a timely discussion of America’s future on the world stage. Dr. Poznansky spoke during a pivotal moment in U.S. foreign policy, with the event occurring just months before the second Trump Administration’s one-year mark and one week following the release of the newest National Security Strategy.
To understand the direction of American foreign policy, Dr. Poznansky began by sharing excerpts from a 2001 memo by Lin Wells, a former Pentagon official. Written just before the Quadrennial Defense Review, a U.S. Department of Defense report now replaced by the National Defense Strategy, Wells’ one-page document walks through decades of geopolitical shifts. As Wells notes, the World Wars, the Great Depression, nuclear proliferation, and other key global events prior to 2001 highlight the constantly evolving nature of international affairs. Dr. Poznansky extended this timeline, adding 9/11, the 2008–2009 financial crisis, and the common use of AI, to Wells’ list of pivotal moments in global history.
“‘I’m not sure what 2010 will look like,’” Dr. Poznansky quoted from the final line of Wells’ memo, “‘but I’m sure that it will be very little like we expect, so we should plan accordingly.’” This sentiment, Dr. Poznansky argued, remains crucial today: accurate prediction is nearly impossible, yet policymakers must still make anticipatory decisions. For the U.S., this paradox raises a central question: What should America’s role be in such an unpredictable world? Dr. Poznansky outlined two contrasting answers to this question. The first is that America must continue to uphold the rules-based international order, a global system where countries interact according to shared, established norms and laws. Having helped establish this framework post-World War II through the creation of the United Nations and nonproliferation agreements, the U.S. has conventionally played an active role in this system. According to this view, America’s role requires defending international norms even when the U.S. is not directly threatened: Dr. Poznansky cited America’s support for Ukraine against Russia as a recent example.
While proponents argue that this approach serves both American and global interests, critics contend that the U.S. built international order has been used against the interests of the U.S., a critique that informs a second answer to the question of America’s role, the America First approach. Dr. Poznansky highlighted the Trump Administration’s recently released National Security Strategy as a key indicator of this shift in perspective. The document, which Congress requires each presidential administration to publish during its four-year term, outlines a vision where the U.S. engages globally only when its interests are at stake.
Dr. Poznansky explained that these competing visions on the U.S.’s role in global affairs complicate the country’s response to contemporary foreign challenges. Be it misinformation, climate change, China’s rising power, or any other evolving issue, these different approaches create fundamental disagreements about which challenges the U.S. is responsible for addressing and whether solutions should be pursued multilaterally or unilaterally.
During the Q&A portion of the event, attendees probed deeper into these visions for U.S. foreign policy. Some questioned whether a truly rules-based international order ever existed in the first place, and Dr. Poznansky acknowledged this tension, highlighting that the U.S. relationship with international institutions has historically been complicated and selective. He also explained that, while the Trump Administration aims to pursue an America First approach, its foreign policy strategy still contains elements of the traditional international order. Congress has continued to fund NATO through the National Defense Authorization Act, and the U.S. maintains efforts to counter Russian aggression, both of which align with traditional international commitments.
In his closing remarks, Dr. Poznansky returned to Wells’ prescient warning about planning for an unpredictable future. The debate between upholding the rules-based international order and embracing an America First approach is ultimately about how the U.S. positions itself for evolving, and sometimes not yet existing, challenges. Wells’ insight endures: the future will surprise us, and the role the U.S. chooses today could shape American foreign policy and the global order for decades to come.
