View source for Foreign policy of the United States

{{Short description|National foreign policy of the United States}}
{{for|bilateral relations|Foreign relations of the United States}}
{{redirect|U.S. Foreign Policy|the book by Walter Lippmann|U.S. Foreign Policy (book){{!}}''U.S. Foreign Policy'' (book)}}
{{Use American English|date=May 2019}} 
{{Use mdy dates|date=August 2024}}
{{more citations needed|date=July 2021}}
{{American imperialism}}
[[File:US official allies and adversaries.svg|thumb|440x440px|Selected [[Defense pact|alliance]], adversarial, and other relationships of the United States
{{legend|#0B1728|[[United States]]}}
{{legend|#214478|[[Five Eyes]]/[[UKUSA Agreement|UKUSA]] and [[NATO]] or [[San Francisco System]] allies}}
{{legend|#3771C8|Other NATO defense pact allies}}
{{legend|#7137C8|Other San Francisco System [[defense pact]]s}}
{{legend|#5AA02C|[[Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance|Rio defense pact]] (excl. Venezuela)}}
{{legend|#87AADE|Non-NATO [[European Union|EU]] members allied indirectly via the [[Common Security and Defense Policy|EU CSDP]]}} 
{{legend|#D4AA00|Other [[Major non-NATO ally|"Major non-NATO" allies]]}}
{{legend|#ABC837|Others known to have participated in US-hosted military exercises ([[Exercise Red Flag|Red Flag]], [[Exercise RIMPAC|RIMPAC]], [[Exercise Talisman Sabre|Talisman Sabre]]) since 2018}}
{{legend|#D40000|Primary adversaries identified in The Final Report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States (October 2023)}}{{Legend|#FF8080|Supporters of Russia in its war against Ukraine}}]]
The officially stated goals of the '''foreign policy of the United States of America''', including all the bureaus and offices in the [[United States Department of State]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/dos/1718.htm|title=Alphabetical List of Bureaus and Offices|work=U.S. Department of State|access-date=April 20, 2016}}</ref> as mentioned in the ''Foreign Policy Agenda'' of the Department of State, are "to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/d/rm/index.htm#mission|title=Bureau of Budget and Planning|website=State.gov|access-date=February 18, 2015}}</ref> Liberalism has been a key component of US foreign policy since its independence from Britain.<ref name=":7">{{Cite journal |last=Desch |first=Michael C. |date=2007 |title=America's Liberal Illiberalism: The Ideological Origins of Overreaction in U.S. Foreign Policy |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/30130517 |journal=International Security |volume=32 |issue=3 |pages=7–43 |doi=10.1162/isec.2008.32.3.7 |jstor=30130517 |s2cid=57572097 |issn=0162-2889}}</ref> Since the end of World War II, the United States has had a grand strategy which has been characterized as being oriented around primacy, "deep engagement", and/or [[Hegemony|liberal hegemony]].<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Brooks |first1=Stephen G. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_cCSDAAAQBAJ |title=America Abroad: The United States' Global Role in the 21st Century |last2=Wohlforth |first2=William C. |date=2016 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-046425-7 |pages=73–77 |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":22">{{Cite book |last=Ikenberry |first=G. John |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=86a3mz3W7DwC&q=after+victory+ikenberry |title=After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars |date=2001 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-0-691-05091-1 |language=en}}</ref> This strategy entails that the United States maintains military predominance; builds and maintains an extensive network of allies (exemplified by NATO, bilateral alliances and foreign US military bases); integrates other states into US-designed international institutions (such as the IMF, WTO/GATT and World Bank); and limits the spread of nuclear weapons.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":22" />

The [[United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs]] states as some of its jurisdictional goals: "export controls, including nonproliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware; measures to foster commercial interaction with foreign nations and to safeguard American business abroad; international commodity agreements; international education; protection of American citizens abroad; and expulsion".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/about.asp?nav=jurisdiction |title=About the Committee |access-date=February 18, 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120415105402/http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/about.asp?nav=jurisdiction |archive-date=April 15, 2012 }}</ref> U.S. foreign policy and [[#Foreign aid|foreign aid]] have been the subject of much debate, praise, and criticism, both domestically and abroad.

== Foreign policy development ==
[[Article Two of the United States Constitution]] grants power of foreign policy to the [[President of the United States]],<ref>{{Cite web |title=U.S. Senate: International Relations |url=https://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/International_Relations_vrd.htm#:~:text=Under%20Article%20II,%20section%202,agreed%20to%20by%20the%20president.&text=The%20president%20has%20the%20power,and%20consent%20of%20the%20Senate. |access-date=2023-05-10 |website=www.senate.gov}}</ref> including powers to [[Commander-in-chief|command the military]], negotiate treaties, and appoint ambassadors. The [[United States Department of State|Department of State]] carries out the president's foreign policy. The State Department is usually pulled between the wishes of Congress, and the wishes of the residing president.<ref>[https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/fofgac/department_of_state/0 Department of State] credoreference.com</ref> The [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]] carries out the president's military policy. The [[Central Intelligence Agency]] is an independent agency responsible for gathering intelligence on foreign activity. Some [[Checks and Balances|checks and balances]] are applied to the president's powers of foreign policy. Treaties negotiated by the president require ratification by the Senate to take force as United States law. The president's ambassadorial nominations also require Senate approval before taking office. Military actions must first be approved by both chambers of Congress.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to approve the president's picks for ambassadors and the power to declare war. The president is [[commander-in-chief]] of the [[United States Armed Forces]]. He appoints a [[United States Secretary of State|Secretary of State]] and ambassadors with the [[advice and consent]] of the Senate. The Secretary acts similarly to a [[foreign minister]], because they are the primary conductor of foreign affairs.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Secretary of State |url=https://www.state.gov/secretary/ |access-date=2023-10-15 |website=United States Department of State |language=en-US}}</ref> While foreign policy has varied slightly from president to president, there have generally been consistently similar goals throughout different administrations.<ref name="auto">{{Cite book |chapter=Foreign Policy |title= The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Military and Diplomatic History |via= Credo Reference |url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/oupomad/foreign_policy/0}}</ref>

Generally speaking there are 4 schools of thought regarding foreign policy. First is Neo-Isolationists, who believe the United States should maintain a very narrow focus and avoid all involvement in the rest of the world. Second is selective-engagement which avoids all conflicts with other nations, and is semi-restrictive on its foreign policy. Third is cooperative security, which requires more involvement throughout the world, occasionally countering threats to the country. Finally is the idea of primacy which seeks to advance the United States well beyond all other nations of the world, placing it first in all matters.<ref name="auto1" />

=== International law ===
Much of American foreign policy consists of international agreements made with other countries. Treaties are governed by the [[Treaty Clause]] of the United States Constitution. This clause dictates that the president negotiates treaties with other countries or political entities, and signs them. For a treaty to be ratified, it must be approved by the [[United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations|Committee on Foreign Relations]] and then be approved by at least two-thirds of the [[United States Senate]] in a floor vote. If approved, the United States exchanges the instruments of ratification with the relevant foreign states.<ref name="senate.gov About Treaties2">{{cite web |title=About Treaties |url=https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/treaties.htm |access-date=July 24, 2021 |work=senate.gov |publisher=United States Senate}}</ref> In ''[[Missouri v. Holland]]'', the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] ruled that the power to make treaties under the U.S. Constitution is a power separate from the other enumerated powers of the federal government, and hence the federal government can use treaties to legislate in areas which would otherwise fall within the exclusive authority of the states.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/252/416/ |access-date=2022-05-05 |website=Justia Law |language=en}}</ref> Between 1789 and 1990, the Senate [[List of United States treaties|approved more than 1,500 treaties]], [[List of treaties unsigned or unratified by the United States|rejected 21 and withdrew 85]] without further action.<ref name="Jett2">{{Cite magazine |author=Dennis Jett |date=December 26, 2014 |title=Republicans Are Blocking Ratification of Even the Most Reasonable International Treaties |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/120646/ratification-arms-trade-treaty-others-blocked-republicans |magazine=[[The New Republic]] |access-date=July 24, 2021}}</ref> As of 2019, 37 treaties were pending Senate approval.<ref>{{Cite web |date=October 22, 2019 |title=Treaties Pending in the Senate |url=https://www.state.gov/treaties-pending-in-the-senate/ |access-date=2022-06-16 |website=United States Department of State |language=en-US}}</ref>

In addition to treaties, the president can also make [[executive agreement]]s. These agreements are made under the president's power of setting foreign policy, but they are not ratified by the Senate and as a result are not legally binding. In contrast to most other nations, the United States regards treaties and executive agreements as legally distinct.{{Citation needed|date=May 2022}} Congress may pass a resolution to enshrine an executive agreement into law, but the constitutionality of this action has been questioned.<ref>Laurence H. Tribe, [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1341856 "Taking Text and Structure Seriously: Reflections on Free-Form Method in Constitutional Interpretation"], 108 ''[[Harvard Law Review]]''. 1221, 1227 (1995).</ref>

The [[United States Department of State|State Department]] has taken the position that the [[Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties]] represents established law. Following ratification, the United States incorporates treaty law into the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties after they are ratified. This can overrule an agreed-upon treaty obligation even if that is seen as a violation of the treaty under [[international law]]. Several U.S. court rulings confirmed this understanding, including Supreme Court decisions in ''[[The Paquete Habana|Paquete Habana v. the United States]]'' (1900), and ''[[Reid v. Covert]]'' (1957), as well as a lower court ruling in ''[[Garcia-Mir v. Meese]]'' (1986).{{Citation needed|date=July 2021}} As a result of the ''Reid v. Covert'' decision, the United States adds a [[Reservation (law)|reservation]] to the text of every treaty that says in effect that the United States intends to abide by the treaty but that if the treaty is found to be in violation of the Constitution, the United States legally is then unable to abide by the treaty since the American signature would be ''[[ultra vires]]''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS: THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE |url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-106SPRT66922/html/CPRT-106SPRT66922.htm |access-date=2022-09-16 |website=www.govinfo.gov}}</ref>

==Historical overview==
{{More citations needed section|date=June 2022}}{{Main|History of United States foreign policy|Timeline of United States diplomatic history}}

The main trend regarding the history of U.S. foreign policy since the American Revolution is the shift from [[non-interventionism]] before and after [[World War I]], to its growth as a world power and global [[hegemony|hegemon]] during World War II and throughout the [[Cold War]] in the 20th century.<ref>George C. Herring, ''[https://archive.org/details/fromcolonytosupe00herr From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776]'' (2008)</ref> Since the 19th century, U.S. foreign policy also has been characterized by a shift from the [[Realism (international relations)|realist school]] to the idealistic or [[Wilsonianism|Wilsonian]] school of international relations.<ref>Richard Russell, "American Diplomatic Realism: A Tradition Practised and Preached by George F. Kennan", ''Diplomacy and Statecraft'', November 2000, Vol. 11 Issue 3, pp.&nbsp;159–83</ref> Over time, other themes, key goals, attitudes, or stances have been variously expressed by [[United States presidential doctrines|presidential 'doctrines']].<ref name="auto2">{{Cite book |chapter=American Foreign Policy |title= 21st Century Political Science: A Reference Handbook |via= Credo Reference |url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/sagetfcpolsci/american_foreign_policy/0}}</ref>

=== 18th century ===
[[File:Jay-treaty.jpg|thumb|upright|The [[Jay Treaty]] of 1795 aligned the U.S. more with Britain and less with France, leading to political polarization at home.]]{{Further|History of U.S. foreign policy, 1776–1801}}Foreign policy themes were expressed considerably in [[George Washington]]'s [[George Washington's Farewell Address|farewell address]]; these included, among other things, observing good faith and justice towards all nations and cultivating peace and harmony with all, excluding both "inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others", "steer[ing] clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world", and advocating trade with all nations.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Washington |first=George |title=Washington's Farewell Address |url=https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Washingtons_Farewell_Address.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180926121617/https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Washingtons_Farewell_Address.pdf |archive-date=2018-09-26 |url-status=live}}</ref> Foreign policy in the first years of American independence constituted the balancing of relations with Great Britain and France. The [[Federalist Party]] supported Washington's foreign policy and sought close ties with Britain, but the [[Democratic-Republican Party]] favored France.<ref>{{Cite web |title=1784–1800: The Diplomacy of the Early Republic |url=https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/foreword |access-date=2022-05-04 |website=United States Department of State}}</ref> Under the Federalist government of [[John Adams]], the United States engaged in conflict with France in the [[Quasi-War]], but the rival Jeffersonians feared Britain and favored France in the 1790s, declaring the [[War of 1812]] on Britain. Jeffersonians vigorously opposed a large standing army and any navy until attacks against American shipping by [[Barbary pirates|Barbary corsairs]] spurred the country into developing a navy, resulting in the [[First Barbary War]] in 1801.<ref name=":6">{{cite web|last=Oren|first=Michael B.|title=The Middle East and the Making of the United States, 1776 to 1815|date=November 3, 2005|url=http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/05/11/michaelOren.html}}</ref>

=== 19th century ===
{{Further|History of U.S. foreign policy, 1801–1829|History of U.S. foreign policy, 1829–1861|History of U.S. foreign policy, 1861–1897|label2=1829–1861|label3=1861–1897}}American foreign policy was mostly peaceful and marked by steady expansion of [[Foreign trade of the United States|its foreign trade]] during the 19th century.{{Citation needed|date=July 2021}} As the Jeffersonians took power in the 1800s, they opposed a large standing army and any navy until attacks against American shipping by [[Barbary pirates|Barbary corsairs]] spurred the country into developing a naval force projection capability, resulting in the [[First Barbary War]] in 1801.<ref name=":6" /> The [[Louisiana Purchase]] in 1803 doubled the nation's geographical area. The American policy of neutrality had caused tensions to rise with Britain in the Atlantic and with Native American nations in the frontier. This led to the War of 1812 and helped cement American foreign policy as independent of Europe.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bukovansky |first=Mlada |date=1997 |title=American identity and neutral rights from independence to the War of 1812 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/abs/american-identity-and-neutral-rights-from-independence-to-the-war-of-1812/4BF73116F5448CD453BC242367F87FA0 |journal=International Organization |language=en |volume=51 |issue=2 |pages=209–243 |doi=10.1162/002081897550348 |s2cid=154876060 |issn=1531-5088}}</ref> After the War of 1812, there were diagreements between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton as to whether the United States should be isolated or be more involved in global activities.<ref name="auto1">[https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/oupor/united_states_foreign_policy/0 US Foreign Policy search] credoreference.com</ref>

In the 1820s, the [[Monroe Doctrine]] was established as the primary foreign policy doctrine of the United States, establishing [[Latin America]] as an American [[sphere of influence]] and rejecting European colonization in the region. The 1830s and 1840s were marked by increasing conflict with Mexico, exacerbated by the [[Texas annexation]] and culminating in the [[Mexican–American War]] in 1846. Following the war, the United States claimed much of what is now the [[Southwestern United States]], and the [[Gadsden Purchase]] further expanded this territory. Relations with Britain continued to be strained as a result of border conflicts until they were resolved by the [[Webster–Ashburton Treaty]] in 1842. The [[Perry Expedition]] of 1853 led to Japan establishing relations with the United States.

The [[Diplomacy of the American Civil War]] emphasized preventing European involvement in the war. During the Civil War, Spain and France defied the Monroe Doctrine and expanded their colonial influence in the Dominican Republic and Mexico, respectively.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Cortada |first=James W. |date=1980 |title=Spain and the American Civil War: Relations at Mid-Century, 1855-1868 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1006164 |journal=Transactions of the American Philosophical Society |volume=70 |issue=4 |pages=1–121 |doi=10.2307/1006164 |jstor=1006164 |issn=0065-9746}}</ref> The [[Alaska Purchase]] was negotiated with Russia in 1867 and the [[Newlands Resolution]] annexed Hawaii in 1898. The [[Spanish–American War]] took place during 1898, resulting in the United States claiming Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, and causing Spain to retract claims upon Cuba.<ref name="auto1"/> Generally speaking the Foreign Policy of the United States during this era was anchored in a policy of wealth building for the nation.<ref name="auto" />

=== 20th century ===
{{Further|History of U.S. foreign policy, 1897–1913}}Following the Spanish–American War, the United States entered the 20th century as an emerging [[great power]] with colonies in the Caribbean and the Pacific. Under [[Theodore Roosevelt]], the United States adopted the [[Roosevelt Corollary]], which indicated American willingness to use its military strength to end conflicts and wrongdoings in Latin America. Following the [[Separation of Panama from Colombia|independence of Panama]], the United States and Panama negotiated the construction of the [[Panama Canal]], during which time the [[Panama Canal Zone]] was placed under American jurisdiction. The United States established the [[Open Door Policy]] with China during this time as well.<ref name="auto1"/> The 20th century was marked by two world wars in which Allied powers, along with the United States, defeated their enemies, and through this participation the United States increased its international reputation.

====World War I and Interbellum====
{{Further|Diplomatic history of World War I|History of U.S. foreign policy, 1913–1933|Foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson}}

Entry into the First World War was a hotly debated issue in the 1916 presidential election.<ref>Arthur S. Link and William M. Leary Jr. "Election of 1916: 'He Kept Us out of War'." in  Arthur M, Schlesinger, Jr., ed.,  ''The Coming to Power: Critical Elections in American History'' (1971): 296-321.</ref>

In response to the [[Russian Revolution|Russian revolutions]],

{{Expand section|date=March 2023}}

President [[Woodrow Wilson|Wilson]]'s [[Fourteen Points]] was developed from his idealistic [[Wilsonianism]] program of spreading democracy and fighting militarism to prevent future wars. It became the basis of the German Armistice (which amounted to a military surrender) and the 1919 [[Paris Peace Conference (1919–1920)|Paris Peace Conference]]. The resulting [[Treaty of Versailles]], due to European allies' punitive and territorial designs, showed insufficient conformity with these points, and the U.S. signed separate treaties with each of its adversaries; due to Senate objections also, the U.S. never joined the [[League of Nations]], which was established as a result of Wilson's initiative. In the 1920s, the United States followed an independent course, and succeeded in a program of [[Washington Naval Conference|naval disarmament]], and [[Dawes Plan|refunding the German economy]]. Operating outside the League it became a dominant player in diplomatic affairs. New York became the financial capital of the world,<ref>{{cite book|author=Donald L. Miller|title=Supreme City: How Jazz Age Manhattan Gave Birth to Modern America|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Mg1DCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA44|year=2015|publisher=Simon and Schuster|pages=44–45|isbn=978-1-4165-5020-4}}</ref> but the [[Wall Street Crash of 1929]] hurled the Western industrialized world into the [[Great Depression]]. American trade policy relied on high tariffs under the Republicans, and reciprocal trade agreements under the Democrats, but in any case exports were at very low levels in the 1930s.{{Citation needed|date=July 2021}} Post WWI, the United States entered back into isolation from world events. This was largely due to the [[Great Depression]] of 1929.<ref name="auto1"/>

====World War II====
{{main|Diplomatic history of World War II#United States|Foreign policy of the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration}}
[[File:Teheran conference-1943.jpg|thumb|[[Allies of World War II]] at the [[Tehran Conference]]: [[Winston Churchill]], [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] and [[Joseph Stalin]]]]
{{Multiple image
| direction         = vertical
| image1            = Franklin D. Roosevelt with King Ibn Saud aboard USS Quincy (CA-71) on 14 February 1945 (USA-C-545).jpg
| image2            = Emperor Haile Selassie I with President FDR.jpg
| footer            = (Top) Both [[King Abdulaziz]] and (Bottom) [[Emperor Haile Selassie I]] with US President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] on USS Quincy (CA-71) in Egypt after the Yalta Conference in February 1945
}}

The United States adopted an isolationist foreign policy from 1932 to 1938, but this position was challenged by the outbreak of [[World War II]] in 1939.<ref name="auto1" /> [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] advocated strong support of the [[Allies of World War II|allies]], establishing the United States as the [[Arsenal of Democracy]] by providing military equipment without entering the war. Following the [[attack on Pearl Harbor]], the United States joined the allies as combatants in World War II.

Roosevelt mentioned four fundamental freedoms, which ought to be enjoyed by people "everywhere in the world"; these included the freedom of speech and religion, as well as freedom from want and fear. Roosevelt helped establish terms for a post-war world among potential allies at the [[Atlantic Charter|Atlantic Conference]]; [[Atlantic Charter#Content and analysis|specific points]] were included to correct earlier failures, which became a step toward the [[United Nations]].<ref name="auto1"/> American policy was to counter Japan, to force out of China, and to prevent attacking the Soviet Union. Japan reacted with an attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, and the United States was at war with Japan, Germany, and Italy. Instead of the loans given to allies in World War I, the United States provided Lend-Lease grants of $50,000,000,000. Working closely with [[Winston Churchill]] of Britain, and Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union, Roosevelt sent his forces into the Pacific against Japan, then into North Africa against Italy and Germany, and finally into Europe starting with France and Italy in 1944 against the Germans. The American economy roared forward, doubling industrial production, and building vast quantities of airplanes, ships, tanks, munitions, and, finally, the atomic bomb. The culmination of World War II ended in the defeat of Nazi Germany, and the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The post World War II era saw the rise of the United States as the global leader, which necessitated an effort by the United States to instill liberal democracy around the world.<ref name="auto1" />

====Cold War====
{{main|Cold War}}
[[File:President Richard Nixon and Mao Zedong.jpg|thumb|President Richard Nixon went to China to open friendly relations and meet Chinese Communist Party Chairman [[Mao Zedong]] in 1972.]]
After the war, the U.S. rose to become the dominant economic power with broad influence in much of the world, with the key policies of the [[Marshall Plan]] and the [[Truman Doctrine]]. Almost immediately, two broad camps formed during the [[Cold War]]; one side was led by the U.S. and the other by the Soviet Union, but this situation also led to the establishment of the [[Non-Aligned Movement]]. This period lasted until almost the end of the 20th century and is thought to be both an ideological and power struggle between the two superpowers. The United States extended its influence in the years after World War II, enacting the [[Marshall Plan]] to support the reconstruction process in European countries and seeking to combat Communism through [[containment]].<ref name="auto1" /> This strategy of containment resulted in the [[Korean War]] and the [[Vietnam War]]. The Vietnam War in particular was highly controversial, and its perceived failures reduced popularity for foreign intervention in the United States.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=McMahon |first=Robert |date=April 1, 2002 |title=Contested Memory: The Vietnam War and American Society, 1975–2001 |journal=Diplomatic History |volume=26 |issue=2 |pages=159–184 |doi=10.1111/1467-7709.00306 |issn=0145-2096|doi-access=free }}</ref> The invasion of [[Afghanistan]] by the [[Soviet Union]] contributed directly to fueling tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. This began with [[Jimmy Carter|President Carter]] announcing the United States interests in maintaining the status quo within the [[Persian Gulf]] region, resulting in the Carter Doctrine. The Regan administration escalated the tensions by supporting freedom fighters around the world, most notably in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion. The Soviet Union and the United States did not engage in direct conflict, but rather supported small proxies that opposed the other.<ref name="auto2"/><ref name="auto1" /> In 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved into separate nations, and the Cold War formally ended as the United States gave separate diplomatic recognition to the Russian Federation and other former Soviet states.{{Citation needed|date=July 2021}}

In domestic politics, foreign policy was not usually a central issue. In 1945–1970, the Democratic Party took a strong [[Anti-communism|anti-Communist]] line and supported wars in Korea and Vietnam. Then the party split with a strong, "dovish", pacifist element (typified by 1972 presidential candidate George McGovern).  Many "hawks", advocates for war, joined the [[Neoconservatism|neoconservative]] movement and started supporting the Republicans—especially [[Foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration|Reagan—based on foreign policy]].<ref>Seymour Martin Lipset, "Neoconservatism: Myth and reality". ''Society'' 25.5 (1988): pp. 9-13 [http://www.diss.fu-berlin.de/docs/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/FUDOCS_derivate_000000001215/fraenkelvortraege01.pdf online].</ref> Meanwhile, down to 1952 the Republican Party was split between an isolationist wing, based in the Midwest and led by Senator [[Robert A. Taft]], and an internationalist wing based in the East and led by [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]. Eisenhower defeated Taft for the 1952 nomination largely on foreign policy grounds. Since then the Republicans have been characterized by [[American nationalism]], strong opposition to Communism, and strong [[Israel–United States relations|support for Israel]].<ref>Colin  Dueck, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=LKhB2ENzgvAC Hard Line: The Republican Party and U.S. Foreign Policy since World War II]'' (2010).</ref>

===21st century===
{{Main|Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration|Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration|Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration|Foreign policy of the Joe Biden administration|l2 = Barack Obama administration|l3 = Donald Trump administration|l4 = Joe Biden administration}}
[[File:-G7Biarritz (48622981642).jpg|thumb|President [[Donald Trump]] and his Western allies from [[Group of Seven|G7]] and [[NATO]]]]
[[File:Secretary Pompeo and Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad (42910851015).jpg|thumb|[[Malaysian Prime Minister]] [[Mahathir Mohamad]] meets with US Secretary of State [[Mike Pompeo]] in 2018.]]Following the end of the Cold War, the United States entered the 21st century as the sole [[superpower]], though this status has been challenged by China, India, Russia, and the [[European Union]].<ref name="tws13jans3w22">{{cite news |author=Nikolas K. Gvosdev |date=January 2, 2008 |title=FDR's Children |work=National Interest |url=http://nationalinterest.org/bookreview/fdrs-children-1931 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100826001356/http://nationalinterest.org/bookreview/fdrs-children-1931 |archive-date=August 26, 2010}}</ref> Substantial problems remain, such as [[climate change]], [[nuclear proliferation]], and the specter of [[international terrorism]].{{Citation needed|date=June 2022}}

The [[September 11 attacks]] in 2001 caused a policy shift, in which America declared a "[[war on terror]]". The United States [[United States invasion of Afghanistan|invaded Afghanistan]] in 2001 and [[2003 invasion of Iraq|invaded Iraq]] in 2003, emphasizing [[nation-building]] and the neutralization of terrorist threats in the Middle East. During the war on terror, the United States significantly expanded its military and intelligence capacities while also pursuing economic methods of targeting opposing governments.  After a [[Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration#Iraq|phased withdrawal from Iraq]], In 2014, the [[Islamic State]] emerged as a major hostile power in the Middle East, and the United States led a [[International military intervention against the Islamic State|military intervention]] in Iraq and Syria to combat it. The extended nature of American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has resulted in support for isolationism and reduced involvement in foreign conflicts.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Al-Oraibi |first1=Mina |last2=Cook |first2=Steven A. |last3=Vohra |first3=Anchal |last4=Ganguly |first4=Sumit |last5=Feaver |first5=Peter |last6=di Giovanni |first6=Janine |last7=Wertheim |first7=Stephen |date=September 8, 2021 |title=Did 9/11 Change the United States? |url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/09/08/september-11-generation-change-afghanistan-iraq/ |access-date=2022-06-16 |website=Foreign Policy |language=en-US}}</ref>

In 2011, the United States led a NATO [[2011 military intervention in Libya|intervention in Libya]]. In 2013, [[Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present)|disclosures]] of American surveillance programs revealed that United States intelligence policy included extensive [[global surveillance]] activities against foreign governments and citizens.<ref>{{Cite news |date=January 17, 2014 |title=Edward Snowden: Leaks that exposed US spy programme |language=en-GB |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23123964 |access-date=2022-06-16}}</ref>

In 2017, diplomats from other countries developed new tactics to engage with President [[Donald Trump]]'s brand of [[American nationalism#Donald Trump presidency|American nationalism]]. [[Peter Baker (journalist)|Peter Baker]] of ''[[The New York Times]]'' reported on the eve of his first foreign trip as president that the global diplomatic community had devised a strategy of keeping interactions brief, complimenting him, and giving him something he can consider a victory.<ref>[[Peter Baker (journalist)|Baker, Peter]] (May 18, 2017). [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/world/middleeast/trump-saudi-arabia-foreign-trip.html "Tips for Leaders Meeting Trump: Keep It Short and Give Him a Win"]. ''[[The New York Times]]''.</ref> Before the Trump presidency, foreign policy in the U.S. was the result of bipartisan consensus on an agenda of strengthening its position as the number one power. That consensus has since fractured, with Republican and Democratic politicians increasingly calling for a more restrained approach.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Ashford|first=Emma|date=September 13, 2021|title=Strategies of Restraint|journal=Foreign Affairs|language=en-US|url=https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2021-08-24/strategies-restraint|access-date=2021-09-14|issn=0015-7120}}</ref> Foreign policy under the Trump administration involved heightened tensions with Iran, a trade war through [[Trump tariffs|increased tariffs]], and a reduced role in international organizations.

Advancing a "[[Free and Open Indo-Pacific]]" has become the core of the U.S. national security strategy and has been embraced by both Democratic and Republican administrations.<ref>{{cite web |title=INDO- PACIFIC STRATEGY OF THE UNITED STATES |url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/U.S.-Indo-Pacific-Strategy.pdf |publisher=White House |access-date=3 February 2022}}</ref> The United States ended its wars in the [[Greater Middle East]] with the [[Withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021)|withdrawal from Afghanistan]] in 2021.<ref name=":5" /> Unlike the Trump administration, which is more concerned [[United States foreign policy toward the People's Republic of China|with containing China's influence]], foreign policy of the Biden-Harris administration shifted to an increased focus on Russia following the attempted [[Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections|Russian election interference in 2016]] and developments in the [[Russo-Ukrainian War]]. With the rise of Russia and China as co-superpowers, the United States has had to shift its relations to more cooperation rather than coercion, with Russia and China pursuing a more self serving global system.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Flannery |first=Russell |title=More Than Half Of Americans Lack Confidence In Biden Ability To Deal Effectively With China – Pew Research |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/russellflannery/2023/04/09/more-than-half-of-americans-lack-confidence-in-biden-ability-to-deal-effectively-with-china--pew-research/ |access-date=2023-04-30 |website=Forbes |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-04-20 |title=Biden's Reshaped Russia Policy |url=https://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/bidens-reshaped-russia-policy |access-date=2023-04-30 |website=China-US Focus}}</ref>

In early 2023, when China brokered the long-awaited reconciliation of Saudi-Arabia Iran relations, the U.S. found itself on the sidelines of political developments in the Middle East. The [[JCPOA]], which attempted to control the nuclear capabilities of Iran, was not fully reinstated after the [[Trump administration]] abandoned the international agreement supported by European powers in 2018. As China attempted to fill this vacuum, the [[2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]] further tested the international alliances with the U.S. Iran and other larger powers such as India as well as Arab nations did not adopt any of the economic sanctions imposed on Russia but to the contrary, increased their economic and strategic alliances with Russia or China. As China is focussing primarily on the global expansion of its economy, Russia was able to maintain its military and energy-related influence not only in Asia but also in Africa and [[South America]]. With regard to the [[Middle East]], trade from these nations with China is three times greater than the trade with the U.S. As China is extending its mid-East reach, Russia despite its battered economy from sanctions still remains influential in [[South America]] with trade relations that are difficult to deconstruct through U.S. American influence. While China's influence in the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Africa is still hindered by commercial and currency-related U.S. trade policies, it is perceived more and more as a peace negotiator than a communist aggressor, particularly outside of Europe and North America. While the U.S. still upholds its moral dominance by advocating for [[democracy]], its foreign policies are increasingly marked by a perceived inability to defend its image as an exporter of peace and prosperity.<ref>Baker P. (March 11, 2023). [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/11/us/politics/saudi-arabia-iran-china-biden.html "Chinese-Brokered Deal Upends Mideast Diplomacy and Challenges U.S"]. ''The New York Times''. Accessed 6 August 2023.</ref><ref>Wong H. (5 Aug. 2023). [https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3230098/china-shores-strategic-ties-united-arab-emirates-beijing-extends-its-mideast-reach "China shores up strategic ties with the United Arab Emirates as Beijing extends its Mideast reach"] ''South China Morning Post''. Accessed 6 August 2023.</ref><ref>v. Hein (30 March 2023). [https://www.dw.com/en/chinas-growing-influence-in-mideast-leaves-us-worried/a-65183360 "China's growing influence in Mideast leaves US worried"] ''Deutsche Welle''. Accessed 6 August 2023.</ref>

== Diplomatic policy ==
The diplomatic policy of the United States is created by the president and carried out by the Department of State. The department's stated mission is to "protect and promote U.S. security, prosperity, and democratic values and shape an international environment in which all Americans can thrive."<ref>{{Cite web |title=About |url=https://www.state.gov/about/ |access-date=2022-05-05 |website=United States Department of State |language=en-US}}</ref> Its objectives during the 2022-2026 period include renewing U.S. leadership, promoting global prosperity, strengthening democratic institutions, revitalizing the diplomatic workforce and institutions, and serving U.S. citizens abroad.<ref>{{Cite report |url=https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Final-State-USAID-FY-2022-2026-Joint-Strategic-Plan_29MAR2022.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220329212540/https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Final-State-USAID-FY-2022-2026-Joint-Strategic-Plan_29MAR2022.pdf |archive-date=2022-03-29 |url-status=live |title=Joint Strategic Plan FY 2022 - 2026 |date=March 2022 |publisher=U.S. Department of State |page=2}}</ref> As of 2022, the United States has [[Foreign relations of the United States|bilateral relations]] with all but four United Nations members.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Countries & Areas |url=https://www.state.gov/countries-areas/ |access-date=2022-05-05 |website=U.S. Department of State |language=en-US}}</ref>

The United States government emphasizes human rights in foreign policy.<ref name="2001-2009.state.gov">{{cite web |date=January 5, 2005 |title=Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor |url=https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl |access-date=February 18, 2015 |website=State.gov}}</ref> Annual reports produced by the Department of State, such as "Advancing Freedom and Democracy" and the "[[Country Reports on Human Rights Practices]]", track the status of human rights around the world.<ref name="Advancing Freedom and Democracy">{{cite web |title=Advancing Freedom and Democracy |url=https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/afdr/index.htm |access-date=April 20, 2016 |website=State.gov}}</ref><ref name="Supporting Human Rights and Democra">{{cite web |date=April 20, 2004 |title=Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record |url=https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/rls/shrd |access-date=February 18, 2015 |website=State.gov}}</ref><ref name="Human Rights Reports">{{cite web |date=March 6, 2007 |title=Human Rights Reports |url=https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt |access-date=February 18, 2015 |website=State.gov}}</ref> The [[National Endowment for Democracy]] provides financial aid to promote democracy internationally.<ref>{{cite web |title=About the National Endowment for Democracy |url=https://www.ned.org/about/ |access-date=2021-10-24 |website=National Endowment for Democracy |language=en-US}}</ref>

=== International agreements ===
{{further|List of United States treaties|International organization membership of the United States|List of treaties unsigned or unratified by the United States}}

The United States is party to thousands of international agreements with other countries, territories, and international organizations. These include [[arms control]] agreements, human rights treaties, [[International environmental agreement|environmental protocols]], and [[free trade agreement]]s.<ref>{{Cite report |url=https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/TIF-2020-Full-website-view.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200922221303/https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/TIF-2020-Full-website-view.pdf |archive-date=2020-09-22 |url-status=live |title=Treaties in Force |date=2020 |publisher=U.S. Department of State}}</ref> Under the [[Compact of Free Association]], the United States also maintains a relationship of [[Associated state|free association]] with the countries of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau, grants the United States military access to the countries in exchange for military protection, foreign aid, and access domestic American agencies.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date=October 15, 2015 |title=Compacts of Free Association |url=https://www.doi.gov/oia/compacts-of-free-association |access-date=2022-06-15 |website=U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Insular Affairs |language=en}}</ref>

The United States is a member of many international organizations. It is a founding member of the [[United Nations]] and holds a permanent seat on the [[United Nations Security Council]]. The United States is also a member of other global organizations, including the [[World Trade Organization]]. Regional organizations in which the United States is a member include [[NATO]], [[Organization of American States]], the [[Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe]], the [[United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement]], and the [[Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation]]. As the largest economy in the world, the United States is also a member of organizations for the most developed nations, including the [[OECD]], the [[Group of Seven]], and the [[G20]].

==== Non-participation in multi-lateral agreements ====
{{further|List of treaties unsigned or unratified by the United States}}{{Prose|date=June 2022}}{{More citations needed section|date=June 2022}}{{Off topic|section=section|date=June 2022}}{{Undue weight section|to=treaties unrelated to American foreign policy|date=June 2022}}
The United States notably does not participate in various international agreements adhered to by almost all other industrialized countries, by almost all the countries of the Americas, or by almost all other countries in the world.  With a large population and economy, on a practical level this can undermine the effect of certain agreements,<ref>The power of the League was limited by the United States' refusal to join.{{cite book |last = Northedge |first = F.S |year = 1986 |title = The League of Nations: Its Life and Times, 1920–1946 |publisher = Holmes & Meier|isbn = 978-0-7185-1316-0 |pages=276–78}}</ref><ref>The United States was responsible for 36% of greenhouse gas emissions at the time of the [[Kyoto Protocol]]</ref> or give other countries a precedent to cite for non-participation in various agreements.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-united-states-should_b_10930236 The United States Should Ratify The Law Of The Sea Convention] (due to China citing U.S. citing non-ratification as a reason it doesn't need to follow the agreement)</ref>

In some cases the arguments against participation include that the United States should maximize its sovereignty and freedom of action, or that ratification would create a basis for lawsuits that would treat American citizens unfairly.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/10/economist-explains-2|title=Why won't America ratify the UN convention on children's rights?|newspaper=The Economist|access-date=October 14, 2017|date=October 6, 2013}}</ref>  In other cases, the debate became involved in domestic political issues, such as [[Gun politics in the United States|gun control]], [[Climate change in the United States|climate change]], and the [[Capital punishment in the United States|death penalty]].{{Citation needed|date=July 2021}}

Examples include:
* [[Treaty of Versailles|Versailles Treaty]] and the [[League of Nations]] covenant (in force 1920–45, signed but not ratified)
* [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights#United States|International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]] (took effect in 1976, ratified with substantial reservations)
* [[International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights]] (took effect in 1976, signed but not ratified)
* [[American Convention on Human Rights]] (took effect in 1978)
* [[Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women|Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women]] (took effect in 1981, signed but not ratified)
* [[Convention on the Rights of the Child]] (took effect in 1990, signed but not ratified)
* [[United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea]] (took effect in 1994)
* [[Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty]] (signed in 1996 but never ratified and never took effect)
* [[Ottawa Treaty|Mine Ban Treaty]] (took effect in 1999)
* [[United States and the International Criminal Court|International Criminal Court]] (took effect in 2002)
* [[Kyoto Protocol]] (in force 2005–12, signed but not ratified)
* [[Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture]] (took effect in 2006)
* [[Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities]] (took effect in 2008, signed but not ratified)
* [[Convention on Cluster Munitions]] (took effect in 2010)
* [[International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance]] (took effect in 2010)
* [[Arms Trade Treaty]] (took effect in 2014)
* [[Human rights in the United States#Other treaties not signed or signed but not ratified|Other human rights treaties]]
* [[Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action]] (took effect in 2016 as part of the [[United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231]]. Signed by the U.S., France, Germany, European Union, UK, Russia, China and Iran, but abandoned by the U.S. in 2018)

=== Foreign aid ===
{{Main|United States foreign aid|United States Agency for International Development}}
Foreign assistance is a core component of the State Department's international affairs budget, and aid is considered an essential instrument of U.S. foreign policy.<ref name="appropriations.house.gov">See [http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/01.13.14_fy_2014_omnibus_-_state_foreign_operations_-_summary.pdf "FY 2014 Omnibus – State and Foreign Operations Appropriations" (Jan 2014)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304115220/http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/01.13.14_fy_2014_omnibus_-_state_foreign_operations_-_summary.pdf |date=March 4, 2016 }}</ref> There are four major categories of non-military foreign assistance: bilateral development aid, economic assistance supporting U.S. political and security goals, humanitarian aid, and multilateral economic contributions (for example, contributions to the World Bank and [[International Monetary Fund]]).<ref>{{cite web |title=We're sorry, that page can't be found. |url=https://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/31987.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040501151508/http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/31987.pdf |archive-date=2004-05-01 |url-status=live |access-date=October 14, 2017 |website=fpc.state.gov}}</ref>{{Failed verification|date=June 2022}} In absolute dollar terms, the United States government is the largest international aid donor.<ref name="appropriations.house.gov" />  The [[United States Agency for International Development]] (USAID) manages the bulk of bilateral economic assistance, while the Treasury Department handles most multilateral aid.<ref>{{cite web |title=Global Economy and Development |url=https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/US-Multilateral-Aid-Review.pdf |website=Brookings |access-date=December 1, 2018}}</ref> Foreign aid is a highly partisan issue in the United States, with liberals, on average, supporting foreign aid much more than conservatives do.<ref>{{cite book |url=http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=23736 |title=The Politics of American Foreign Policy: How Ideology Divides Liberals and Conservatives over Foreign Affairs - Peter Hays Gries |date=April 16, 2014 |publisher=Stanford University Press |isbn=978-0-8047-8935-6 |access-date=February 18, 2015}}</ref>

The United States first began distributing regular foreign aid in the aftermath of World War II and the onset of the Cold War. Foreign aid has been used to foster closer relations with foreign nations, strengthen countries that could potentially become future allies and trading partners, and provide assistance for people of countries most in need. American foreign aid contributed to the [[Green Revolution]] in the 1960s and the democratization of Taiwan and Colombia.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Runde |first=Daniel F. |date=May 14, 2020 |title=U.S. Foreign Assistance in the Age of Strategic Competition |url=https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-foreign-assistance-age-strategic-competition |access-date=2022-06-16 |website=Center for Strategic & International Studies |language=en}}</ref> Since the 1970s, issues of human rights have become increasingly important in American foreign policy, and several acts of Congress served to restrict foreign aid from governments that "engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Xypolia |first=Ilia |url=https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-99815-8 |title=Human Rights, Imperialism, and Corruption in US Foreign Policy |year=2022 |publisher=Palgrave |isbn=978-3-030-99814-1 |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-3-030-99815-8|s2cid=248384134 }}</ref><ref name="Forsythe2">{{cite book |last=Forsythe |first=David |url=https://archive.org/details/humanrightsusfor00fors |title=Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy: Congress Reconsidered |publisher=University Press of Florida |year=1988 |isbn=978-0-8130-0885-1 |location=Gainesville |pages=[https://archive.org/details/humanrightsusfor00fors/page/1 1]–23 |quote=Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy: Congress Reconsidered. |url-access=registration}}</ref> In 2011, President Obama instructed agencies to consider [[LGBT rights by country or territory|LGBT rights]] when issuing financial aid to foreign countries.<ref>{{cite news |last=McVeigh |first=Karen |date=December 6, 2011 |title=Gay rights must be criterion for U.S. aid allocations, instructs Obama |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |location=London |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/07/gay-rights-us-aid-criteria |access-date=January 4, 2013}}</ref>  In the 2019 fiscal year, the United States spent $39.2 billion in foreign aid, constituting less than one percent of the federal budget.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ingram |first=George |date=October 2, 2019 |title=What every American should know about US foreign aid |url=https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/what-every-american-should-know-about-u-s-foreign-aid/ |access-date=2022-06-16 |website=Brookings |language=en-US}}</ref>

=== War on Drugs ===
{{Main|War on drugs}}
{{Seealso|Operation Just Cause}}
United States foreign policy is influenced by the efforts of the U.S. government to control imports of illicit [[illegal drug trade|drugs]], including [[cocaine]], [[heroin]], [[methamphetamine]], and [[Cannabis (drug)|cannabis]]. This is especially true in Latin America, a focus for the U.S. [[War on drugs|War on Drugs]]. These foreign policy efforts date back to at least the 1900s, when the U.S. banned the importation of non-medical [[opium]] and participated in the 1909 [[International Opium Commission]], one of the first international drug conferences.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Brown|first1=Richard Harvey|date=2002|title=The Opium Trade and Opium Policies in India, China, Britain, and the United States: Historical Comparisons and Theoretical Interpretations|journal=Asian Journal of Social Science|volume=30|number=3|pages=642–643|doi=10.1163/156853102320945420|jstor=23654609}}</ref>

Over a century later, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act requires the President to identify the major drug transit or major illicit drug-producing countries. In September 2005,<ref>{{cite web |date=September 15, 2005 |title=Memorandum for the Secretary of State |url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/09/20050915-2.html |access-date=February 18, 2015 |website=Georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov}}</ref> the following countries were identified: [[Bahamas]], [[Bolivia]], [[Brazil]], [[Burma]], [[Colombia]], [[Dominican Republic]], [[Ecuador]], [[Guatemala]], [[Haiti]], India, [[Jamaica]], [[Laos]], Mexico, [[Nigeria]], Pakistan, [[Panama]], [[Paraguay]], [[Peru]] and [[Venezuela]]. Two of these, Burma and Venezuela are countries that the U.S. considers to have failed to adhere to their obligations under international counternarcotics agreements during the previous 12 months. Notably absent from the 2005 list were [[Afghanistan]], the [[China|People's Republic of China]] and [[Vietnam]]; Canada was also omitted in spite of evidence that criminal groups there are increasingly involved in the production of [[MDMA]] destined for the United States and that large-scale cross-border trafficking of Canadian-grown cannabis continues. The U.S. believes that the Netherlands are successfully countering the production and flow of MDMA to the U.S.{{Citation needed|date=July 2021}}

In 2011, overdose deaths in the U.S. were on a decline mostly due to interdiction efforts and international cooperation to reduce the production of illicit drugs. Since about 2014, a reversal of this trend could be clearly seen as legal semi-synthetic opioids and [[cocaine]] stimulants were replaced by the fully synthetic [[fentanyl]] and [[methamphetamine]]. By 2022, overdose deaths caused by illicit fentanyl led to the worst drug crisis the U.S. has ever experienced in its history, with 1,500 people dying every week of overdose-related cases. By 2022, deaths caused by fentanyl significantly reduced the [[life expectancy]] in the U.S. and were also seen as a major drag on the [[U.S. economy]]. Despite efforts to control the trade of chemicals used in the synthesis of fentanyl, the tide of fentanyl-related deaths continues to be a major threat to U.S. [[national security]].<ref>Klobucista C and Martinez A (April 19, 2023) [https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/fentanyl-and-us-opioid-epidemic "Fentanyl and the U.S. Opioid Epidemic"] ''Council on Foreign Relations''. Accessed 6 August 2023.</ref>

=== Regional diplomacy ===
{{Expand section|date=June 2022}}{{Further|Foreign relations of the United States}}

==== Africa ====
{{Main|Africa–United States relations}}
American involvement with Africa has historically been limited. During the war on terror, the United States increased its activities in Africa to fight terrorism in conjunction with African countries as well as to support democracy in Africa through the [[Millennium Challenge Corporation]]. Africa has also been the subject of competition between American and Chinese investment strategies.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Stith |first=Charles R. |date=November 3, 2021 |title=U.S.-Africa Relations: An Opportunity Lost or Found - Foreign Policy Research Institute |url=https://www.americanambassadorslive.org/post/u-s-africa-relations-an-opportunity-lost-or-found |access-date=2022-06-17 |website=American Ambassadors Live |language=en-US}}</ref> In 2007 the U.S. was [[Sub-Saharan Africa]]'s largest single export market accounting for 28% of exports (second in total to the EU at 31%). 81% of U.S. imports from this region were petroleum products.<ref>{{cite web |title=U.S.-African Trade Profile |first1=J. |last1=Diemond |date=July 2009 |publisher=International Trade Administration  |website=African Growth and Opportunity Act |url=http://www.agoa.gov/resources/US_African_Trade_Profile_2009.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090812223826/http://agoa.gov/resources/US_African_Trade_Profile_2009.pdf |archive-date=August 12, 2009 |access-date=2009-06-04}}</ref>

==== Asia ====
{{Main|Asia–United States relations}}
America's relations with Asia have tended to be based on a "hub and spoke" model instead of multilateral relations, using a series of bilateral relationships where states coordinate with the United States instead of through a unified bloc.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hufbauer |first1=Gary Clyde |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rYeeuxAkipUC&pg=PA132 |title=Western Hemisphere Economic Integration |last2=Schott |first2=Jeffrey J. |publisher=Peterson Institute |year=1994 |isbn=978-0-88132-159-3 |pages=132–22}}</ref> On May 30, 2009, at the [[Shangri-La Dialogue]], Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates urged the nations of Asia to build on this hub and spoke model as they established and grew multilateral institutions such as [[ASEAN]], [[Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation|APEC]] and the ad hoc arrangements in the area.{{citation needed|date=November 2023}} In 2011, Gates said the United States must serve as the "indispensable nation", for building multilateral cooperation.<ref>Shanker, Tom. [https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/world/asia/03Gates.html "Gates Talks of Boosting Asian Security Despite Budget Cuts"]. ''The New York Times'', June 1, 2011.</ref> As of 2022, the Department of Defense considers China to be the greatest threat to the policy goals of the United States.<ref name=":0" />

==== Canada ====
{{Main|Canada–United States relations}}
Canada has historically been a close ally to the United States, and their foreign policies often work in conjunction. The armed forces of Canada and the United States have a high level of interoperability, and domestic air force operations have been fully integrated between the two countries through [[NORAD]].<ref name="cbc.ca">{{cite web |last=Cudmore |first=James |title=Canadian military explored plan to fully integrate forces with U.S. – Politics – CBC News |url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-military-integration-canada-us-1.3248594 |access-date=2022-06-17 |publisher=Cbc.ca}}</ref> Almost all of [[Energy policy of Canada|Canada's energy exports]] go to the United States, making it the largest foreign source of U.S. energy imports; Canada is consistently among the top sources for U.S. oil imports, and it is the largest source of U.S. natural gas and electricity imports.<ref>See Energy Information Administration, [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Canada/Background.html "Canada" (2009 report)] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101210173605/http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Canada/Background.html|date=December 10, 2010}}</ref> Trade between the United States and Canada as well as Mexico is facilitated through the [[United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement|USMCA]].

==== Europe ====
{{Main|Europe–United States relations}}
The United States has close ties with the [[European Union]], and it is a member of NATO along with several European countries. The United States has close relations with most countries of Europe. Much of American foreign policy has involved combating the Soviet Union in the 20th century and Russia in the 21st century.

==== Latin America ====
{{Main|Latin America–United States relations}}
The Monroe Doctrine has historically made up the foreign policy of the United States in regard to Latin America. Under this policy, the United States would consider Latin America to be under its sphere of influence and defend Latin American countries from European hostilities. The United States was heavily involved in the politics of Panama during the early-20th century in order to construct the [[Panama Canal]]. Cuba was an ally of the United States following its independence, but it was identified as a major national security threat following the [[Cuban Revolution]]; Cuba–United States relations remain poor.

==== Middle East ====
{{Main|United States foreign policy in the Middle East}}
[[File:US Navy 030402-N-5362A-004 U.S. Army Sgt. Mark Phiffer stands guard duty near a burning oil well in the Rumaylah Oil Fields in Southern Iraq.jpg|thumb|A U.S. soldier stands guard duty near a burning oil well in the [[Rumaila oil field]], Iraq, April 2003.]]
The Middle East region was first proclaimed to be of national interest to the United States during World War II, and relations were secured with Saudi Arabia to secure additional oil supplies.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm|title=Crude Designs|author=James Paul |publisher=Global Policy Forum|access-date=February 18, 2015}}</ref> The Middle East continued to be regarded as an area of vital importance to the United States during the [[Cold War]], and American containment policy emphasized preventing Soviet influence from taking hold in the Middle East.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Campbell |first=John C. |date=1972 |title=The Soviet Union and the United States in the Middle East |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1039119 |journal=The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science |volume=401 |issue=1 |pages=126–135 |doi=10.1177/000271627240100114 |jstor=1039119 |s2cid=145139648 |issn=0002-7162}}</ref> The [[Truman Doctrine]], the [[Eisenhower Doctrine]], and the [[Nixon Doctrine]] all played roles in the formulation of the [[Carter Doctrine]], which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its [[national interest]]s in the [[Persian Gulf]] region.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20140116200222/http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20874331/ The war is about oil but it's not that simple], NBC News</ref> Carter's successor, President [[Ronald Reagan]], extended the policy in October 1981 with the [[Reagan Doctrine]], which proclaimed that the United States would intervene to protect Saudi Arabia, whose security was threatened after the outbreak of the [[Iran–Iraq War]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/dstorm/sword-shield.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150101230128/http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/dstorm/sword-shield.htm|url-status=dead|title=The United States Navy and the Persian Gulf|archive-date=January 1, 2015}}</ref> During the so-called war on terror, the United States increased its involvement in the region; some analysts have argued that the implementation of the Carter Doctrine and the Reagan Doctrine also played a role in the outbreak of the 2003 Iraq War.<ref>{{cite news |author-link=Shmuel Rosner |last=Rosner |first=Shmuel |date=June 26, 2008 |url=http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/996605.html |title=What if the Chinese were to apply the Carter Doctrine? |newspaper=[[Haaretz]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080629185858/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/996605.html |archive-date=June 29, 2008}}</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20090524043058/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921819,00.html "Selling the Carter Doctrine"], ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]''. February 18, 1980.</ref><ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil]{{dead link|date=September 2024|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}, ''[[The Times]]''</ref><ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jun/20/iraq.oil Oil giants to sign contracts with Iraq], ''The Guardian''</ref>

Two-thirds of the world's proven [[oil reserves]] are estimated to be found in the [[Persian Gulf]],<ref>[https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E4D6123AF93AA15752C0A9649C8B63 Shrinking Our Presence in Saudi Arabia], ''The New York Times''.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20080528150802/http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/environment/alternative-energy/end-cheap-oil.html The End of Cheap Oil], National Geographic</ref> and the United States imports oil from several Middle Eastern countries. While its imports have exceeded domestic production since the early 1990s, new [[hydraulic fracturing]] techniques and discovery of shale oil deposits in Canada and the American Dakotas offer the potential for increased [[United States energy independence|energy independence]] from oil exporting countries such as [[OPEC]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Company Level Imports |url=http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html |access-date=April 20, 2016 |website=Eia.doe.gov}}</ref>

==== Oceania ====
{{Main|Oceania–United States relations}}
Australia and New Zealand are close allies of the United States. Together, the three countries compose the [[ANZUS]] collective security agreement. The United States and the United Kingdom also have a separate agreement, [[AUKUS]], with Australia. After it captured the islands from Japan during World War II, the United States administered the [[Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands]] from 1947 to 1986 (1994 for Palau).  The [[Northern Mariana Islands]] became a U.S. territory (part of the United States), while [[Federated States of Micronesia]], the [[Marshall Islands]], and [[Palau]] became independent countries.  Each has signed a [[Compact of Free Association]] that gives the United States exclusive military access in return for U.S. defense protection and conduct of military foreign affairs (except the declaration of war) and a few billion dollars of aid.  These agreements also generally allow citizens of these countries to live and work in the United States with their spouses (and vice versa), and provide for largely free trade.  The federal government also grants access to services from domestic agencies, including the [[Federal Emergency Management Agency]], [[National Weather Service]], the [[United States Postal Service]], the [[Federal Aviation Administration]], the [[Federal Communications Commission]], and U.S. representation to the International Frequency Registration Board of the [[International Telecommunication Union]].{{Citation needed|date=July 2021}}

==Defense policy==

{{See also|:Category:Bilateral military relations of the United States}}[[File:US treaty allies.svg|thumb|[[Defense pact|Defense treaty]] allies of the United States]]Defense policy of the United States is established by the president under the role of commander-in-chief, and it is carried out by the Department of Defense and the [[United States Department of Homeland Security|Department of Homeland Security]]. As of 2022, the stated objective of the Department of Defense is to deter attacks against the United States and its allies in order to protect the American people, expand America's prosperity, and defend democratic values. The department recognizes China as the greatest foreign threat to the United States, with Russia, North Korea, Iran, and [[List of designated terrorist groups|violent extremist organizations]] recognized as other major foreign threats.<ref name=":0">{{Cite report |url=https://media.defense.gov/2022/Mar/28/2002964702/-1/-1/1/NDS-FACT-SHEET.PDF |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220328213613/https://media.defense.gov/2022/Mar/28/2002964702/-1/-1/1/NDS-FACT-SHEET.PDF |archive-date=2022-03-28 |url-status=live |title=Fact Sheet: 2022 National Defense Strategy |date=March 28, 2022 |publisher=U.S. Department of Defense}}</ref> Most American troops stationed in foreign countries operate in non-combat roles. As of 2021, about 173,000 troops are deployed in 159 countries. Japan, Germany, and South Korea are host to the largest numbers of American troops due to continued military cooperation following World War II and the Korean War.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |last1=Hussein |first1=Mohammed |last2=Haddad |first2=Mohammed |date=September 10, 2021 |title=Infographic: History of US interventions in the past 70 years |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-military-presence-around-the-world-interactive |access-date=2022-06-16 |website=Al Jazeera |language=en}}</ref> The United States has not been involved in a major war since the conclusion of the [[War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)|War in Afghanistan]] in 2021, though American forces continue to operate against terrorist groups in the Middle East and Africa through the [[Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001]].<ref name=":5">{{Cite news |last=Mazzetti |first=Mark |date=September 22, 2021 |title=Biden Declared the War Over. But Wars Go On. |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/22/us/politics/biden-war.html |access-date=2022-06-16 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> The United States also provides billions of dollars of military aid to allied countries each year.<ref name=":4" />

The Constitution of the United States requires that Congress authorize any military conflict initiated by the president. This has been carried out through formal declarations of war, Congressional authorizations without formal declaration, and through United Nations Security Council Resolutions that are legally recognized by Congress. The [[War Powers Resolution]] of 1973 limited the ability of the president to use the military without Congressional authorization. Prior to 2001, 125 instances of American presidents using military force without Congressional authorization had been identified.<ref>{{Cite report |url=https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2001/09/31/op-olc-v025-p0188_0.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140913195554/http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2001/09/31/op-olc-v025-p0188_0.pdf |archive-date=2014-09-13 |url-status=live |title=The President's Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations Against Terrorists and Nations Supporting Them |last=Yoo |first=John C. |date=September 25, 2001 |publisher=U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel}}</ref> Since 2001, the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 (AUMF) has granted the president the power to engage in military conflict with any country, organization, or person that was involved in carrying out the September 11 attacks. American presidents have since interpreted the AUMF to authorize military campaigns against terrorist groups associated with [[Al-Qaeda]] in several countries.<ref>{{cite web |date=December 2016 |title=Report on the Legal and Policy Frameworks Guiding the United States' Use of Military Force and Related National Security Operations |url=https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/framework.Report_Final.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161206165638/https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/framework.Report_Final.pdf |archive-date=2016-12-06 |url-status=live |access-date=May 5, 2022 |publisher=The White House}}</ref>

=== Alliances and partnerships ===
The Department of Defense considers cooperation with American allies and partners to be "critical" to achieving American defense objectives.<ref name=":0" /> The department makes a distinction between alliances, which are formal military agreements between countries through a treaty, and strategic partnerships, which are military cooperation agreements that aren't bound by specific terms.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Roulo |first=Claudette |date=March 22, 2019 |title=Alliances vs. Partnerships |url=https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/Story/Article/1684641/alliances-vs-partnerships/ |access-date=2022-05-05 |website=U.S. Department of Defense |language=en-US}}</ref> The United States military works in cooperation with many national governments, and the United States has approximately 750 military bases in at least 80 different countries.<ref name=":3" /> In addition to military agreements, the United States is a member of multiple international disarmament organizations, including the [[International Atomic Energy Agency]] and the [[Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons]].[[File:USA military relations 2007.png|thumb|A map of allies of the United States<br />
{{legend|#1f78b4|[[NATO]] member states, including their colonies and overseas possessions}}
{{legend|#a6cee3|[[Major non-NATO ally|Major non-NATO allies]]}}
{{legend|#b2df8a|Signatories of [[Partnership for Peace]] with NATO}}]]
The United States is a founding member of NATO, an alliance of 29 North American and European nations formed to defend Western Europe against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Under the [[North Atlantic Treaty|NATO charter]], the United States legally recognizes any attack on a NATO member as an attack on all NATO members. The United States is also a founding member of the [[Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance]], an alliance of 19 North and South American nations. The United States is one of the three members of [[ANZUS]], along with Australia and New Zealand, and it also has military alliances with [[Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security Between the United States and Japan|Japan]], [[Mutual Defense Treaty (United States–South Korea)|South Korea]], the [[Mutual Defense Treaty (United States–Philippines)|Philippines]], and [[Thailand]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/l/treaty/collectivedefense|title=U.S. Collective Defense Arrangements|website=State.gov|access-date=October 14, 2017}}</ref> Under the Compact of Free Association, the United States is responsible for the defense of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau.<ref name=":2" /> The United States has also designated several countries as [[Major non-NATO ally|major non-NATO allies]]. These are countries that are not members of NATO but are granted certain privileges in regard to defense trade and security cooperation, including eligibility for certain trade deals and research collaboration. The president is empowered to designate additional foreign countries as major non-NATO allies.<ref>{{Cite web |date=January 20, 2021 |title=Major Non-NATO Ally Status |url=https://www.state.gov/major-non-nato-ally-status/ |access-date=2022-05-05 |website=U.S. Department of State |language=en-US}}</ref>

Since it became a superpower in the mid-20th century, the United States has primarily carried out defense operations by leading and participating in multilateral coalitions. These coalitions may be constructed around existing defensive alliances, such as NATO, or through separate coalitions constructed through diplomatic negotiations and acting in a common interest. The United States has not engaged in unilateral military action since the [[United States invasion of Panama|invasion of Panama]] in 1989.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Henke |first=Marina E. |date=June 1, 2017 |title=The Politics of Diplomacy: How the United States Builds Multilateral Military Coalitions |url=https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqx017 |journal=International Studies Quarterly |volume=61 |issue=2 |pages=410–424 |doi=10.1093/isq/sqx017 |issn=0020-8833}}</ref> United States military action may take place in accordance with or in opposition to the wishes of the United Nations. The United States has opposed the expansion of [[United Nations peacekeeping]] beyond its previous scope, instead supporting the use of multilateral coalitions in hostile countries and territories.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Mingst |first=Karen |date=December 1, 2003 |title=Troubled Waters: The United States-United Nations Relationship |url=https://doi.org/10.1080/13533310308559349 |journal=International Peacekeeping |volume=10 |issue=4 |pages=82–93 |doi=10.1080/13533310308559349 |s2cid=144220261 |issn=1353-3312}}</ref>[[File:American bases worldwide.svg|thumb|upright=1.5|Countries with [[List of United States military bases|U.S. military bases]] (excluding the U.S. Coast Guard)]]

[[File:Members of the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command, assigned to the 23rd Special Tactics Squadron.jpg|thumb|U.S. Air Force Special Tactics Commandos training with Jordanian special operations forces]]

===Military aid===
{{Main|United States military aid|United States Foreign Military Financing|Foreign Military Sales}}[[File:Flickr - The U.S. Army - Humanitarian aid in Rajan Kala, Afghanistan.jpg|thumb|U.S. Soldiers unload humanitarian aid for distribution to the town of Rajan Kala, [[Afghanistan]], December 2009.]]
The U.S. provides military aid through many channels, including direct funding, support for training, or distribution of military equipment. Military aid spending has varied over time, with spending reaching as high as $35 billion in 1952, adjusted for inflation.<ref name=":4" /> The United States established a cohesive military aid policy during World War II, when the [[Lend-Lease]] program was implemented to support the [[Allies of World War II|Allied powers]]. After the war, the United States continued to provide military aid in line with other foreign aid programs to support American allies. Programs such as [[United States Foreign Military Financing|Foreign Military Financing]] and [[Foreign Military Sales]] oversee distribution of military aid.

According to a 2016 report by the [[Congressional Research Service]], the U.S. topped the market in global weapon sales for 2015, with $40&nbsp;billion sold. The largest buyers were Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Pakistan, Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq.<ref>{{cite news |date=December 26, 2016 |title=U.S. Sold $40 Billion in Weapons in 2015, Topping Global Market |newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/26/us/politics/united-states-global-weapons-sales.html |access-date=2017-01-01}}</ref> In 2020, the United States distributed $11.6 billion in military aid, the lowest since 2004. Military aid is one of the main forms of foreign aid, with 23% of American foreign aid in 2020 taking the form of military aid. Afghanistan was the primary recipient of American military aid in the 2010s. In 2022, military aid policy in the United States shifted from Afghanistan to Ukraine following the end of the War in Afghanistan and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |date=May 3, 2022 |title=How much does the US give other countries in military aid? |url=https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-does-the-us-give-other-countries-in-military-aid/ |access-date=2022-06-16 |website=USAFacts |language=en}}</ref> As of 2021, the United States has military bases in at least 80 countries.<ref name=":3" />

The table below outlines the ten largest recipients of United States military aid in 2020 and their estimated aid in billions.<ref name=":4" />

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Recipient
! Military aid 2020 (USD Billions)
|-
|{{flag|Israel}}||3.30
|-
|{{flag|Afghanistan|2004}}||2.76
|-
|{{flag|Egypt}}||1.30
|-
|{{flag|Iraq}}||0.5481
|-
|{{flag|Jordan}}||0.5040
|-
|{{flag|Ukraine}}||0.2840
|-
|{{flag|Lebanon}}||0.2445
|-
|{{flag|Philippines}}||0.1651
|-
|{{flag|Somalia}}||0.1384
|-
|{{flag|Tunisia}}
|0.1021
|}

===Missile defense===
{{Main|Missile defense systems by country|Strategic Defense Initiative}}
The [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] (SDI) was a proposal by U.S. President [[Ronald Reagan]] on March 23, 1983<ref>[[Federation of American Scientists]]. [https://fas.org/spp/starwars/program/milestone.htm Missile Defense Milestones] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160306023546/http://fas.org/spp/starwars/program/milestone.htm |date=March 6, 2016 }}. Accessed March 10, 2006.</ref> to use ground and space-based systems to protect the United States from attack by strategic [[nuclear weapon|nuclear]] [[ballistic missile]]s,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20090118121734/http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-obamas-chance-to-end-the--fantasy-that-is-star-wars-1015509.html Johann Hari: Obama's chance to end the fantasy that is Star Wars], The Independent, November 13, 2008</ref> later dubbed ''"Star Wars"''.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/starwars.speech/ Historical Documents: Reagan's 'Star Wars' speech] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081219114207/http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/starwars.speech/ |date=December 19, 2008 }}, CNN Cold War</ref> The initiative focused on strategic defense rather than the prior strategic offense doctrine of [[mutual assured destruction]] (MAD). Though it was never fully developed or deployed, the research and technologies of SDI paved the way for some [[anti-ballistic missile]] systems of today.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://science.howstuffworks.com/missile-defense3.htm|title=Son of "Star Wars" - How Missile Defense Systems Will Work|work=HowStuffWorks|access-date=February 18, 2015|date=April 5, 2001}}</ref>

In February 2007, the U.S. started formal negotiations with Poland and [[Czech Republic]] concerning construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a [[Ground-Based Midcourse Defense]] system<ref name="news.yahoo.com">{{cite web|url=https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080823/ap_on_go_co/us_russia_missile_defense|title=Missile defense backers now cite Russia threat|website=News.yahoo.com|access-date=October 14, 2017}}</ref> (in April 2007, 57% of [[Polish people|Poles]] opposed the plan).<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/24/AR2007042400871.html U.S. Might Negotiate on Missile Defense], washingtonpost.com</ref> According to press reports, the government of the Czech Republic agreed (while 67% Czechs disagree)<ref>[http://www.cvvm.cas.cz/upl/zpravy/100761s_pm80306.pdf Citizens on U.S. Anti-Missile Radar Base in Czech Republic] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081130053315/http://www.cvvm.cas.cz/upl/zpravy/100761s_pm80306.pdf |date=November 30, 2008 }}</ref> to host a [[missile defense]] radar on its territory while a base of missile interceptors is supposed to be built in Poland.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6704669.stm Europe diary: Missile defence], BBC News</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.rand.org/commentary/032907IHT.html|title=Missile Defense: Avoiding a Crisis in Europe|website=rand.org|access-date=February 18, 2015}}</ref>

Russia threatened to place short-range [[Nuclear weapons delivery|nuclear missiles]] on the Russia's border with [[NATO]] if the United States refuses to abandon plans to deploy 10 interceptor missiles and a radar in Poland and the Czech Republic.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569495/Russia-piles-pressure-on-EU-over-missile-shield.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1569495/Russia-piles-pressure-on-EU-over-missile-shield.html |archive-date=January 12, 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=Russia piles pressure on EU over missile shield|last=Bloomfield|first=Adrian|date=November 15, 2007|work=[[The Daily Telegraph]]}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/23/asia/AS-GEN-China-Russia.php China, Russia sign nuclear deal, condemn U.S. missile defense plans], International Herald Tribune</ref> In April 2007, Putin warned of a [[new Cold War]] if the Americans deployed the shield in Central Europe.<ref>{{cite news|last=Harding|first=Luke|date=April 11, 2007|title=Russia threatening new cold war over missile defence|language=en-GB|work=The Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/11/usa.topstories3|issn=0261-3077}}</ref> Putin also said that Russia is prepared to abandon its obligations under an [[Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty]] of 1987 with the United States.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-10-12-us-russia_N.htm |title=U.S., Russia no closer on missile defense |website=USA Today}}</ref>

On August 14, 2008, the United States and Poland announced a deal to implement the [[United States missile defense complex in Poland|missile defense system in Polish territory]], with a tracking system placed in the Czech Republic.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Shanker|first1=Thom|last2=Kulish|first2=Nicholas|date=August 15, 2008|title=Russia Lashes Out on Missile Deal|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/world/europe/16poland.html|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> "The fact that this was signed in a period of very difficult crisis in the relations between Russia and the United States over the situation in [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]] shows that, of course, the missile defense system will be deployed not against [[Iran]] but against the strategic potential of Russia", Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's [[NATO]] envoy, said.<ref name="news.yahoo.com"/><ref>[http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2008/08/200881514010734640.html Russia angry over U.S. missile shield], Al Jazeera English, August 15, 2008</ref>

Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, argue in [[Foreign Affairs]] that U.S. missile defenses are designed to secure Washington's nuclear primacy and are chiefly directed at potential rivals, such as Russia and China. The authors note that Washington continues to eschew nuclear first strike and contend that deploying missile defenses "would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one; as an adjunct to a US First Strike capability, not as a stand-alone shield":

<blockquote>If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with only a tiny surviving arsenal, if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes.<ref>[https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2006-03-01/rise-us-nuclear-primacy "The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy"] Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2006</ref></blockquote>

This analysis is corroborated by the Pentagon's 1992 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG), prepared by then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney and his deputies. The DPG declares that the United States should use its power to "prevent the reemergence of a new rival" either on former Soviet territory or elsewhere. The authors of the Guidance determined that the United States had to "Field a missile defense system as a shield against accidental missile launches or limited missile strikes by 'international outlaws'" and also must "Find ways to integrate the 'new democracies' of the former Soviet bloc into the U.S.-led system". The National Archive notes that Document 10 of the DPG includes wording about "disarming capabilities to destroy" which is followed by several blacked out words. "This suggests that some of the heavily excised pages in the still-classified DPG drafts may include some discussion of preventive action against threatening nuclear and other WMD programs."<ref>[http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb245/ "Prevent the Reemergence of a New Rival"] The National Security Archive</ref>

Robert David English, writing in ''[[Foreign Affairs]]'', observes that the DPG's second recommendation has also been proceeding on course. "Washington has pursued policies that have ignored Russian interests (and sometimes international law as well) in order to encircle Moscow with military alliances and trade blocs conducive to U.S. interests."<ref>[https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/2017-03-10/russia-trump-and-new-d-tente "Russia, Trump, and a New Détente"] Foreign Affairs, March 10, 2017</ref>

On September 12, 2024, the U.S. disclosed that Russia obtained ballistic missiles from Iran for its war in Ukraine, leading to new sanctions on Russian entities involved. The U.S. also targeted Iran Air and other organizations linked to Iran’s missile activities, though Iran denies supplying the weapons. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is set to visit Ukraine and Poland to discuss further support, as Ukraine urges stronger actions.<ref>{{cite news |title=Russia received missiles from Iran, U.S. says as it piles on sanctions |date=10 September 2024 |url=https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/09/11/world/politics/us-russia-missiles-iran-sanctions/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240914132559/https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/09/11/world/politics/us-russia-missiles-iran-sanctions/ |archive-date=September 14, 2024 |access-date=15 September 2024 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Psaledakis|first1=Daphne|last2=Lewis |first2= Simon|date=10 September 2024|title=US says Russia received missiles from Iran, piles on sanctions|language=en|work=Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/world/blinken-says-russia-received-missiles-iran-warns-threat-european-security-2024-09-10/ |access-date=15 September 2024}}</ref>

===Exporting democracy===
  {{See also|Democracy promotion by the United States}}
[[File:Kissinger, Ford, Suharto and Malik (cropped).jpg|thumb|Indonesian President [[Suharto]] with U.S. President [[Gerald Ford]] in Jakarta on December 6, 1975, one day before the [[Indonesian invasion of East Timor]]]]

Studies have been devoted to the historical success rate of the U.S. in exporting democracy abroad. Some studies of American intervention have been pessimistic about the overall effectiveness of U.S. efforts to encourage democracy in foreign nations.<ref name="operation">{{cite journal
|first=John A.
|last=Tures
|title=Operation Exporting Freedom: The Quest for Democratization via United States Military Operations
|journal=[[Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations]]
|url=http://blogs.shu.edu/diplomacy/files/archives/09_tures.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110720043449/http://blogs.shu.edu/diplomacy/files/archives/09_tures.pdf |archive-date=2011-07-20 |url-status=live
}}PDF file.</ref> Until recently, scholars have generally agreed with international relations professor Abraham Lowenthal that U.S. attempts to export democracy have been "negligible, often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive".<ref name = "Abraham">{{cite book
|last=Lowenthal
|first=Abraham
|title=The United States and Latin American Democracy: Learning from History
|year=1991
|publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press
|pages=243–65
|location=Baltimore
}}</ref><ref name="mark7">{{cite book
|last=Peceny
|first=Mark
|year=1999
|title=Democracy at the Point of Bayonets
|url=https://archive.org/details/democracyatpoint00pece
|url-access=limited
|publisher=University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press
|page=[https://archive.org/details/democracyatpoint00pece/page/n191 183]
|isbn=978-0-271-01883-6
}}</ref> Other studies find [[Timeline of United States military operations|U.S. intervention]] has had mixed results,<ref name="operation" /> and another by Hermann and Kegley has found that military interventions have improved democracy in other countries.<ref name="promote">{{cite journal |first1=Margaret G. |last1=Hermann|author-link1=Margaret Hermann |year=1998 |title=The U.S. Use of Military Intervention to Promote Democracy: Evaluating the Record |journal=International Interactions  |volume=24 |issue=2 |pages=91–114 |doi=10.1080/03050629808434922 |last2=Kegley |first2=Charles}}</ref>

== Intelligence policy ==
{{anchor|Covert United States involvement in regime change}}
{{See also|Clandestine HUMINT and covert action|United States involvement in regime change|History of the Central Intelligence Agency}}
Intelligence policy is developed by the president and carried out by the [[United States Intelligence Community]], led by the [[Director of National Intelligence]]. The Intelligence Community includes 17 offices and bureaus within various executive departments as well as the Central Intelligence Agency.<ref>{{cite web |title=Members of the IC |url=http://www.dni.gov/index.php/intelligence-community/members-of-the-ic |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160301072520/http://www.dni.gov/index.php/intelligence-community/members-of-the-ic |archive-date=2016-03-01 |access-date=2016-02-10}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=USSF Becomes 18th Member of Intel Community |url=https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2466657/ussf-becomes-18th-member-of-intel-community/ |publisher=defense.gov}}</ref> Its stated purpose is to utilize insights, protected information, and understanding of adversaries to advance national security, economic strength, and technological superiority.<ref>{{Cite report |url=https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/National_Intelligence_Strategy_2019.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190123085519/https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/National_Intelligence_Strategy_2019.pdf |archive-date=2019-01-23 |url-status=live |title=National Intelligence Strategy |date=2019 |publisher=Office of the Director of National Intelligence |page=1}}</ref>

The Intelligence Community provides support for all diplomatic and military action undertaken by the United States and serves to inform government and military decision-making, as well as collecting and analyzing global economic and environmental information. The primary functions of the Intelligence Community are the collection and analysis of information, and it is responsible for collecting information on foreign subjects that is not available publicly or through diplomatic channels. Collection of information typically takes the form of [[signals intelligence]], [[imagery intelligence]], and [[Human intelligence (intelligence gathering)|human intelligence]]. Information collected by American intelligence is used to counter foreign intelligence, terrorism, narcotics trafficking, WMD proliferation, and international organized crime.<ref name=":1">{{Cite report |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vRbRC-jexTgC |title=Preparing for the 21st Century: An Appraisal of U.S. Intelligence |date=1996 |publisher=Commission on the Roles and Capabilities of the United States Intelligence Community}}</ref>

=== Counterintelligence ===
The Intelligence Community is responsible for [[counterintelligence]] to protect the United States from foreign intelligence services. The Central Intelligence Agency is responsible for counterintelligence activities abroad, while the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] is responsible for combating foreign intelligence operations in the United States. The goal of American counterintelligence is to protect classified government information as well as [[trade secret]]s of American industry. Offensive counterintelligence operations undertaken by the United States include [[Mole (espionage)|recruiting foreign intelligence agents]], monitoring suspected foreign agents, and collecting information on the intentions of foreign intelligence services, while defensive counterintelligence operations include investigating suspected cases of espionage and producing analyses of foreign intelligence threats.<ref name=":1" />

Counterintelligence operations in the United States began when the [[Espionage Act of 1917]] was used to prosecute German infiltrators and saboteurs during [[World War I]]. Today, counterintelligence is applied in the United States as a tool of national security. Due to its global influence, the United States is considered to be the world's greatest target for intelligence operations. Terrorists, tyrants, foreign adversaries, and economic competitors have all been found to engage in "a range of intelligence activities" directed against the United States. Terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda have been found to employ intelligence practices similar to those of foreign powers, and American counterintelligence operations play a significant role in [[counterterrorism]].<ref>{{Cite report |url=https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA471485.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220804193641/https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA471485.pdf |archive-date=2022-08-04 |url-status=live |title=Counterintelligence and National Strategy |last=Van Cleave |first=Michelle K. |date=2007 |publisher=[[National Defense University]]}}</ref>

=== Covert action ===
In addition to intelligence gathering, the Central Intelligence Agency is authorized by the [[National Security Act of 1947]] to engage in covert action. Covert action is undertaken to influence conditions in foreign countries without evidence of American involvement. This may include enacting propaganda campaigns, offering support to factions within a country, providing logistical assistance to foreign governments, or disrupting illegal activities. The use of covert action is controversial within the Intelligence Community due to the potential harm to foreign relations and public image, but most individuals involved in American intelligence cite it as an "essential" option to prevent terrorism, drug trafficking, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.<ref name=":1" />

==== Examples of covert involvement in regime change ====
{{Excessive examples|section|date=June 2022}}{{Covert United States involvement in regime change}}
United States foreign policy also includes covert actions to topple foreign governments that have been opposed to the United States. According to J. Dana Stuster, writing in ''[[Foreign Policy]]'', there are seven "confirmed cases" where the U.S.—acting principally through the [[Central Intelligence Agency]] (CIA), but sometimes with the support of other parts of the U.S. government, including the [[United States Navy|Navy]] and [[United States Department of State|State Department]]—covertly assisted in the overthrow of a foreign government: [[1953 Iranian coup d'état|Iran in 1953]], [[1954 Guatemalan coup d'état|Guatemala in 1954]], [[Patrice Lumumba#United States involvement|Congo in 1960]], [[Rafael Trujillo#Assassination|the Dominican Republic in 1961]], [[1963 South Vietnamese coup|South Vietnam in 1963]], [[1964 Brazilian coup d'état|Brazil in 1964]], and [[1973 Chilean coup d'état|Chile in 1973]]. Stuster states that this list excludes "U.S.-supported insurgencies and failed assassination attempts" such as [[Operation Mongoose|those directed against Cuba's Fidel Castro]], as well as instances where U.S. involvement has been alleged but not proven (such as [[March 1949 Syrian coup d'état|Syria in 1949]]).<ref>{{cite web |last=Stuster |first=J. Dana |date=August 20, 2013 |title=Mapped: The 7 Governments the U.S. Has Overthrown |url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/20/mapped-the-7-governments-the-u-s-has-overthrown/ |access-date=2016-11-21 |work=[[Foreign Policy]]}}</ref>

In 1953 the CIA, working with the British government, initiated ''[[1953 Iranian coup d'état|Operation Ajax]]'' against the [[Prime Minister of Iran]] [[Mohammad Mosaddegh|Mohammad Mossadegh]] who had attempted to [[Nationalization|nationalize]] Iran's oil, threatening the interests of the [[Anglo-Persian Oil Company]]. This had the effect of restoring and strengthening the authoritarian monarchical reign of [[Shah]] [[Mohammad Reza Pahlavi]].<ref name="NYTsr2000">{{Cite news |year=2000 |title=Special Report: Secret History of the CIA in Iran |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html}}</ref> In 1957, the CIA and [[Israel]]i [[Mossad]] aided the Iranian government in establishing its intelligence service, [[SAVAK]], later blamed for the torture and execution of the regime's opponents.<ref>{{cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/irancountrystudy00curt_2/page/276 |title=Iran: A Country Study |publisher=Library of Congress, Federal Research Division |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-8444-1187-3 |editor-last1=Curtis |editor-first1=Glenn E. |edition=Fifth |location=Washington, D.C. |page=[https://archive.org/details/irancountrystudy00curt_2/page/276 276] |editor-last2=Hooglund |editor-first2=Eric}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=February 11, 2010 |title=Timeline: A Modern History of Iran |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/middle_east-jan-june10-timeline/ |access-date=November 23, 2016 |work=[[PBS NewsHour]]}}</ref>

A year later, in [[1954 Guatemalan coup d'état|''Operation PBSuccess'']], the CIA assisted the local military in toppling the democratically elected left-wing government of [[Jacobo Árbenz]] in [[Guatemala]] and installing the military dictator [[Carlos Castillo Armas]]. The [[United Fruit Company]] lobbied for Árbenz's overthrow as his [[Decree 900|land reforms]] jeopardized their land holdings in Guatemala, and painted these reforms as a communist threat. The coup triggered a decades long [[Guatemalan Civil War|civil war]] which claimed the lives of an estimated 200,000 people (42,275 individual cases have been documented), mostly through [[Guatemalan genocide|626 massacres against the Maya population]] perpetrated by the U.S.-backed Guatemalan military.<ref>[[Stephen Schlesinger]] (June 3, 2011). [https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/04/opinion/04schlesinger.html?_r=0 Ghosts of Guatemala's Past]. ''The New York Times''. Retrieved July 5, 2014.</ref><ref name="Navarro">{{cite news |last=Navarro |first=Mireya |date=February 26, 1999 |title=Guatemalan Army Waged 'Genocide,' New Report Finds |newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/26/world/guatemalan-army-waged-genocide-new-report-finds.html |access-date=November 21, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Jones |first=Maggie |date=June 30, 2016 |title=The Secrets in Guatemala's Bones |newspaper=[[The New York Times Magazine]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/magazine/the-secrets-in-guatemalas-bones.html |access-date=November 21, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Cooper |first=Allan |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Uyh8kdcuA1kC&pg=PA171 |title=The Geography of Genocide |publisher=[[University Press of America]] |year=2008 |isbn=978-0-7618-4097-8 |page=171}}</ref> An independent Historical Clarification Commission found that U.S. corporations and government officials "exercised pressure to maintain the country's archaic and unjust socio-economic structure",<ref name="Navarro" /> and that U.S. military assistance had a "significant bearing on human rights violations during the armed confrontation".<ref>{{cite book |last=Blakeley |first=Ruth |url=http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415462402/ |title=State Terrorism and Neoliberalism: The North in the South |date=2009 |publisher=[[Routledge]] |isbn=978-0-415-68617-4 |page=94}}</ref>

During the [[Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66|massacre of at least 500,000 alleged communists]] in 1960s Indonesia, U.S. government officials encouraged and applauded the mass killings while providing covert assistance to the Indonesian military which helped facilitate them.<ref>{{cite book |last=Robinson |first=Geoffrey B. |url=https://press.princeton.edu/titles/11135.html |title=The Killing Season: A History of the Indonesian Massacres, 1965-66 |date=2018 |publisher=[[Princeton University Press]] |isbn=978-1-4008-8886-3 |pages=22–23, 177}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Beech |first=Hannah |date=October 18, 2017 |title=U.S. Stood by as Indonesia Killed a Half-Million People, Papers Show |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/world/asia/indonesia-cables-communist-massacres.html |url-access=limited |access-date=October 19, 2017 |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220101/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/18/world/asia/indonesia-cables-communist-massacres.html |archive-date=2022-01-01}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Simpson |first=Bradley |title=Economists with Guns: Authoritarian Development and U.S.–Indonesian Relations, 1960-1968 |date=2010 |publisher=[[Stanford University Press]] |isbn=978-0-8047-7182-5 |page=193 |quote=Washington did everything in its power to encourage and facilitate the army-led massacre of alleged PKI members, and U.S. officials worried only that the killing of the party's unarmed supporters might not go far enough, permitting Sukarno to return to power and frustrate the [Johnson] Administration's emerging plans for a post-Sukarno Indonesia.}}</ref><ref name="Thaler">Kai Thaler (December 2, 2015). [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/12/02/50-years-ago-today-the-u-s-embassy-endorsed-mass-killings-in-indonesia-heres-what-that-means-for-today/ 50 years ago today, American diplomats endorsed mass killings in Indonesia. Here's what that means for today.] ''[[The Washington Post]]''. Retrieved December 4, 2015.</ref><ref name="Scott">Margaret Scott (November 2, 2015) [http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/nov/02/indonesian-massacre-what-did-us-know/ The Indonesian Massacre: What Did the US Know?] ''[[The New York Review of Books]]''. Retrieved November 6, 2015.</ref> This included the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta supplying Indonesian forces with lists of up to 5,000 names of suspected members of the [[Communist Party of Indonesia]] (PKI), who were subsequently killed in the massacres.<ref>{{cite book |last=Robinson |first=Geoffrey B. |url=https://press.princeton.edu/titles/11135.html |title=The Killing Season: A History of the Indonesian Massacres, 1965-66 |date=2018 |publisher=[[Princeton University Press]] |isbn=978-1-4008-8886-3 |page=203 |quote=a US Embassy official in Jakarta, Robert Martens, had supplied the Indonesian Army with lists containing the names of thousands of PKI officials in the months after the alleged coup attempt. According to the journalist Kathy Kadane, 'As many as 5,000 names were furnished over a period of months to the Army there, and the Americans later checked off the names of those who had been killed or captured.' Despite Martens later denials of any such intent, these actions almost certainly aided in the death or detention of many innocent people. They also sent a powerful message that the US government agreed with and supported the army's campaign against the PKI, even as that campaign took its terrible toll in human lives.}}</ref><ref>Bellamy, Alex J. (2012). ''Massacres and Morality: Mass Atrocities in an Age of Civilian Immunity''. [[Oxford University Press]]. {{ISBN|978-0-19-928842-7}}. [https://books.google.com/books?id=EK8eK2xPCycC&pg=PA210 p. 210.]</ref><ref name="BlumenthalMcCormack">Mark Aarons (2007). [https://books.google.com/books?id=dg0hWswKgTIC&pg=PA69 "Justice Betrayed: Post-1945 Responses to Genocide"]. In David A. Blumenthal and Timothy L. H. McCormack (eds). [http://www.brill.com/legacy-nuremberg-civilising-influence-or-institutionalised-vengeance ''The Legacy of Nuremberg: Civilising Influence or Institutionalised Vengeance? (International Humanitarian Law)'']. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160105053952/http://www.brill.com/legacy-nuremberg-civilising-influence-or-institutionalised-vengeance|date=January 5, 2016}} [[Martinus Nijhoff Publishers]]. {{ISBN|978-90-04-15691-3}} [https://books.google.com/books?id=dg0hWswKgTIC&pg=PA81 pp.&nbsp;80–81]</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Valentino |first=Benjamin A. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZNy55BHupsoC&pg=PA27 |title=Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century |date=2005 |publisher=[[Cornell University Press]] |isbn=978-0-8014-7273-2 |page=27}}</ref> In 2001, the CIA attempted to prevent the publication of the State Department volume ''Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968'', which documents the [[CIA activities in Indonesia#Anti-communist purge|U.S. role]] in providing covert assistance to the Indonesian military for the express purpose of the extirpation of the PKI.<ref name="Scott" /><ref>[https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-jul-28-mn-27536-story.html U.S. Seeks to Keep Lid on Far East Purge Role]. [[Associated Press]]: ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'', July 28, 2001. Retrieved November 6, 2015.</ref><ref>Thomas Blanton (ed). [http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB52/ CIA Stalling State Department Histories: State Historians Conclude U.S. Passed Names Of Communists To Indonesian Army, Which Killed At Least 105,000 In 1965–66]. National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 52., July 27, 2001. Retrieved November 6, 2015.</ref> In July 2016,  an international panel of judges ruled the killings constitute crimes against humanity, and that the US, along with other Western governments, were complicit in these crimes.<ref>{{cite news |last=Perry |first=Juliet |date=July 21, 2016 |title=Tribunal finds Indonesia guilty of 1965 genocide; US, UK complicit |work=CNN |url=http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/21/asia/indonesia-genocide-panel/index.html |access-date=June 5, 2017}}</ref>

In 1970, the [[United States intervention in Chile#Track II|CIA worked with coup-plotters]] in Chile in the attempted kidnapping of General [[René Schneider]], who was targeted for refusing to participate in a military coup upon the election of [[Salvador Allende]]. Schneider was shot in the botched attempt and died three days later. The CIA later paid the group $35,000 for the failed kidnapping.<ref>[https://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=82588 CIA Admits Involvement in Chile]. ''[[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]]''. September 20</ref><ref>[[John Dinges]]. ''The Condor Years: How Pinochet And His Allies Brought Terrorism To Three Continents''. [[The New Press]], 2005. [https://books.google.com/books?id=3JjtHROah_YC&pg=PA20 p. 20]. {{ISBN|978-1-56584-977-8}}</ref>

According to one peer-reviewed study, the U.S. intervened in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Levin |first=Dov H. |date=June 2016 |title=When the Great Power Gets a Vote: The Effects of Great Power Electoral Interventions on Election Results |journal=[[International Studies Quarterly]] |volume=60 |issue=2 |pages=189–202 |doi=10.1093/isq/sqv016 |doi-access=free}} See the full list of interventions in the [http://isq.oxfordjournals.org/content/isq/suppl/2016/02/29/sqv016.DC1/appendix_2.pdf appendix.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170118105110/http://isq.oxfordjournals.org/content/isq/suppl/2016/02/29/sqv016.DC1/appendix_2.pdf|date=January 18, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Agrawal |first=Nina |date=December 21, 2016 |title=The U.S. is no stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries |url=http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html |access-date=2018-01-06 |work=Los Angeles Times}}</ref>

The failed 1961 CIA [[Bay of Pigs Invasion]] in Cuba was an attempt by the U.S. government to overthrow a regime.<ref>{{cite journal|url= https://www.jstor.org/stable/23884834|title= Crisis Management at the Dead Center: The 1960-1961 Presidential Transition and the Bay of Pigs Fiasco|journal=Presidential Studies Quarterly|jstor= 23884834|access-date=November 1, 2022|last1= Friedman|first1= Rebecca R.|year= 2011|volume= 41|issue= 2|pages= 307–333|doi= 10.1111/j.1741-5705.2011.03856.x}}</ref><ref name="BBC, how the Bay of Pigs invasion failed">{{cite news|url= https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56808455|title=How the Bay of Pigs invasion began - and failed - 60 years on|work=BBC News |date=April 23, 2021 |access-date=November 1, 2022}}</ref> Not only did this cause a diplomatic embarrassment, it also damaged the CIA's credibility internationally.<ref>{{cite book |last=Higgins|first=Trumbull|date=1987|title=The Perfect Failure|publisher= W. W. Norton & Company|isbn=978-0-03-902473-4}}</ref>

== Public image ==
{{See also|Criticism of United States foreign policy}}{{Excessive examples|section|date=June 2022}}
United States foreign policy has been the subject of debate, receiving praise and criticism domestically and abroad. As of 2019, public opinion in the United States is closely divided on American involvement in world affairs. 53% of Americans wish for the United States to be active in world affairs, while 46% of Americans wish for less involvement overseas. American involvement in the global economy is received more positively by the American people, with 73% considering it to be a "good thing".<ref>{{Cite web |date=December 17, 2019 |title=In a Politically Polarized Era, Sharp Divides in Both Partisan Coalitions: Views of foreign policy |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/12/17/6-views-of-foreign-policy/ |access-date=2022-05-06 |website=Pew Research Center |language=en-US}}</ref>[[File:DigiGes PRISM Yes we scan - Demo am Checkpoint Charlie June 2013.jpg|thumb|Demonstration at [[Checkpoint Charlie]] in Berlin against the [[National Security Agency|NSA]] surveillance program [[PRISM (surveillance program)|PRISM]], June 2013]]

=== Global opinion ===
[[File:Public opinion on the US.svg|thumb|Public opinion on the US (2022) {{legend|#B2182B|< -40}}{{legend|#D6604D|-20 to -5}}{{legend|#F4A582|-4 to +4}}{{legend|#FDDBC7|+5 to +20}}{{legend|#D1E5F0|+20 to +34}}{{legend|#92C5DE|+35 to +49}}{{legend|#4393C3|+50 to +64}}{{legend|#2166AC|> +65}}]]

Overall, the United States is viewed positively by the rest of the world. The Eurasia Group Foundation reported that as of 2021, 85% of respondents from 10 countries have a favorable opinion of the United States and 81% favor American hegemony over Chinese hegemony. Those with an unfavorable view of the United States most commonly cited interventionism, and in particular the [[War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)|War in Afghanistan]], as their reason. It was also found that the exercise of [[soft power]] increased favorable opinions while the exercise of [[hard power]] decreased favorable opinions. Citizens of Brazil, Nigeria, and India were found to have more favorable opinions of the United States, while citizens of China and Germany were found to have less favorable opinions of the United States.<ref>{{Cite report |url=http://egfound.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2021_06_Modeling-Democracy.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210729091744/https://egfound.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2021_06_Modeling-Democracy.pdf |archive-date=2021-07-29 |url-status=live |title=Democracy in Disarray: How the World Sees the U.S. and Its Example |last1=Hannah |first1=Mark |last2=Gray |first2=Caroline |date=May 2021 |publisher=Eurasia Group Foundation}}</ref>[[File:Bratislava's Hviezdoslavovo Square 2005-02-24.jpg|thumb|250px|right|President [[George W. Bush]] and Slovakia's Prime Minister [[Mikuláš Dzurinda|Mikulas Dzurinda]] are greeted by a crowd of thousands gathered in [[Bratislava]]'s [[Hviezdoslavovo námestie (Bratislava)|Hviezdoslavovo Square]] (February 2005).]]
International opinion about the US has often changed with different executive administrations. For example, in 2009, the French public favored the United States when President Barack Obama (75% favorable) replaced President George W. Bush (42%). After President Donald Trump took the helm in 2017, French public opinion about the US fell from 63% to 46%. These trends were also seen in other European countries.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/18/6-trends-in-international-public-opinion-from-our-global-indicators-database/|title=5 trends in international public opinion from our searchable Global Indicators Database|date=August 18, 2017|publisher=Pew Research Center}}</ref>

Many democracies have voluntary military ties with the United States. See [[NATO]], [[ANZUS]], [[Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security Between the United States and Japan|U.S.-Japan Security Treaty]], [[Defense pact|Mutual Defense Treaty]] with [[South Korea]], and [[Major non-NATO ally]]. Those nations with military alliances with the U.S. can spend less on the military since they can count on U.S. protection. This may give a false impression that the U.S. is less peaceful than those nations.<ref>[http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9266967 Give peace a rating] May 31, 2007, from ''The Economist'' print edition</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20070626090409/http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/407850/all Japan ranked as world's 5th most peaceful nation: report] Japan Today, May 31, 2007</ref> A 2013 global poll in 65 countries found that the United States is perceived as the biggest threat to world peace, with 24% of respondents identifying it as such. A majority of Russian respondents named the United States as the greatest threat, as well as significant minorities in China, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Argentina, Greece, Turkey, and Pakistan.<ref>{{cite news |last=Editorial |first=Post |date=January 5, 2014 |title=US is the greatest threat to world peace: poll &#124; New York Post |publisher=Nypost.com |url=https://nypost.com/2014/01/05/us-is-the-greatest-threat-to-world-peace-poll/ |access-date=2014-08-18}}</ref>

=== Foreign intervention ===
[[File:Dedication ceremony of the Embassy of the United States in Jerusalem 2724 (42152538641).jpg|thumb|Dedication ceremony of the [[Embassy of the United States, Jerusalem|Embassy of the United States]] in [[Jerusalem]], Israel, 14 May 2018]]
Empirical studies (see [[democide]]) have found that democracies, including the United States, inflict significantly fewer civilian casualties than dictatorships.<ref>Death By Government By R.J. Rummel New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1994. Online links: [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM] [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.FIG23.4.GIF] [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/POWER.FIG2.GIF]</ref><ref>''[http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/genocide/ No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust?] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071030201259/http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/genocide/|date=October 30, 2007}}'', Barbara Harff, 2003.</ref> [[Media bias in the United States#Foreign policy|Media may be biased]] against the U.S. regarding reporting human rights violations. Studies have found that ''The New York Times'' coverage of worldwide human rights violations predominantly focuses on the human rights violations in nations where there is clear U.S. involvement, while having relatively little coverage of the human rights violations in other nations.<ref name="Caliendo1999">{{cite journal |author=Caliendo, S.M. |year=1999 |title=All the News That's Fit to Print? New York Times Coverage of Human-Rights Violations |url=http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/harvard_international_journal_of_press_politics/v004/4.4caliendo.html |journal=The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics |volume=4 |issue=4 |pages=48–69 |doi=10.1177/1081180x9900400404 |access-date=2008-04-02 |s2cid=145716613}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author1=Caliendo, Stephen. |author2=Gibney, Mark. |year=2006 |title=American Print Media Coverage of Human Rights Violations |url=http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p152798_index.html?type=info |access-date=2008-04-02}}</ref> For example, the bloodiest war in recent time, involving eight nations and killing millions of civilians, was the [[Second Congo War]], which was almost completely ignored by the media.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Gidley |first=Ruth |date=March 10, 2005 |title=Brutal conflicts get scant attention from media |work=[[Houston Chronicle]] |url=https://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/brutal-conflicts-get-scant-attention-from-media-1929165.php |access-date=November 15, 2023}}</ref>

Journalists and human rights organizations have been critical of US-led airstrikes and [[targeted killing]]s by [[Unmanned combat aerial vehicle|drones]] which have in some cases resulted in [[collateral damage]] of civilian populations.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/19/world/syria-airstrikes-civilian-casualties/ U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria kill civilians, rights groups say]. [[CNN]]. July 20, 2016.</ref><ref>[[Jeremy Scahill]] and the staff of ''[[The Intercept]]'' (2016).  ''The Assassination Complex: Inside the Government's Secret Drone Warfare Program''. [[Simon & Schuster]]. {{ISBN|978-1-5011-4413-4}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s)/no by-line.--> |date=November 13, 2021 |title=U.S. military hid airstrikes that killed dozens of civilians in Syria |work=[[Reuters]] |location= |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-military-hid-airstrikes-that-killed-dozens-civilians-syria-nyt-2021-11-13/ |access-date=November 20, 2021}}</ref> In early 2017, the U.S. faced criticism from some scholars, activists and media outlets for dropping 26,171 bombs on seven countries throughout 2016: Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.<ref>{{cite news |last=Grandin |first=Greg |author-link=Greg Grandin |date=January 15, 2017 |title=Why Did the US Drop 26,171 Bombs on the World Last Year? |work=[[The Nation]] |url=https://www.thenation.com/article/why-did-the-us-dropped-26171-bombs-on-the-world-last-year/ |access-date=April 14, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Agerholm |first=Harriet |date=January 19, 2017 |title=Map shows where President Barack Obama dropped his 20,000 bombs |work=The Independent |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-president-barack-obama-bomb-map-drone-wars-strikes-20000-pakistan-middle-east-afghanistan-a7534851.html |access-date=April 14, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Benjamin |first=Medea |author-link=Medea Benjamin |date=January 9, 2017 |title=America dropped 26,171 bombs in 2016. What a bloody end to Obama's reign |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy |access-date=April 14, 2017}}</ref>

Research on the [[democratic peace theory]] has generally found that democracies, including the United States, have not made war on one another. There have been U.S. support for coups against some democracies, but for example [[Spencer R. Weart]] argues that part of the explanation was the perception, correct or not, that these states were turning into Communist dictatorships. Also important was the role of rarely transparent United States government agencies, who sometimes mislead or did not fully implement the decisions of elected civilian leaders.<ref>{{cite book |last=Weart |first=Spencer R. |title=Never at War |title-link=Never at War |publisher=Yale University Press |year=1998 |isbn=978-0-300-07017-0 |author-link=Spencer R. Weart}} pp. 221–24, 314.</ref>

Critics from the left cite episodes that undercut leftist governments or showed support for Israel. Others cite human rights abuses and violations of international law. Critics have charged that the [[President of the United States|U.S. presidents]] have used [[democracy]] to justify [[Timeline of United States military operations|military intervention]] abroad.<ref name="Why">{{cite journal |last=Mesquita |first=Bruce Bueno de |date=Spring 2004 |title=Why Gun-Barrel Democracy Doesn't Work |url=http://www.hooverdigest.org/042/bdm.html |url-status=dead |journal=Hoover Digest |volume=2 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080705115001/http://www.hooverdigest.org/042/bdm.html |archive-date=July 5, 2008 }} Also see [https://archive.today/20240524152930/https://www.webcitation.org/5knrQi9sX?url=http://www.geocities.com/travbailey/why.html this page].</ref><ref name="Meernik 1996 391">{{cite journal |last=Meernik |first=James |year=1996 |title=United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy |journal=Journal of Peace Research |volume=33 |issue=4 |pages=391–402 |doi=10.1177/0022343396033004002 |s2cid=51897214}}</ref> Critics also point to declassified records which indicate that the CIA under [[Allen Dulles]] and the FBI under [[J. Edgar Hoover]] aggressively recruited more than 1,000 Nazis, including those responsible for war crimes, to use as spies and informants against the [[Soviet Union]] in the Cold War.<ref>Eric Lichtblau (October 26, 2014). [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/us/in-cold-war-us-spy-agencies-used-1000-nazis.html In Cold War, U.S. Spy Agencies Used 1,000 Nazis]. ''The New York Times''. Retrieved November 10, 2014.</ref><ref>[http://www.democracynow.org/2014/10/31/the_nazis_next_door_eric_lichtblau The Nazis Next Door: Eric Lichtblau on How the CIA & FBI Secretly Sheltered Nazi War Criminals]. ''[[Democracy Now!]]'' October 31, 2014.</ref>

Studies have been devoted to the historical success rate of the U.S. in exporting democracy abroad. Some studies of American intervention have been pessimistic about the overall effectiveness of U.S. efforts to encourage democracy in foreign nations.<ref name="operation" /> Some scholars have generally agreed with international relations professor Abraham Lowenthal that U.S. attempts to export democracy have been "negligible, often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive".<ref name="Abraham" /><ref name="mark7" /> Other studies find [[Timeline of United States military operations|U.S. intervention]] has had mixed results,<ref name="operation" /> and another by Hermann and Kegley has found that military interventions have improved democracy in other countries.<ref name="promote" />

America's history of non-intervention has been criticized as well. In his World Policy Journal review of Bill Kauffman's  1995 book ''America First! Its History, Culture, and Politics'', [[Benjamin Schwarz (writer)|Benjamin Schwartz]] described America's history of isolationism as a "tragedy" and being rooted in [[Puritans|Puritan]] thinking.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Schwartz |first=Benjamin |date=Fall 1996 |title=Review: The Tragedy of American Isolationism |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/40209494 |journal=World Policy Journal |volume=13 |page=107 |jstor=40209494 |access-date=December 6, 2020 |number=3}}</ref>

Today the U.S. states that democratic nations best support U.S. national interests. According to the U.S. State Department, "Democracy is the one national interest that helps to secure all the others. Democratically governed nations are more likely to secure the peace, deter aggression, expand open markets, promote economic development, protect American citizens, combat international terrorism and crime, uphold human and worker rights, avoid humanitarian crises and refugee flows, improve the global environment, and protect human health."<ref>{{cite web |date=May 10, 2007 |title=Democracy |url=https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/democ |access-date=February 18, 2015 |website=State.gov}}</ref> According to former U.S. President [[Bill Clinton]], "Ultimately, the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don't attack each other."<ref>{{cite news |author=Clinton, Bill |date=January 28, 2000 |title=1994 State Of The Union Address |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/states/docs/sou94.htm |access-date=2006-01-22}}</ref> In one view mentioned by the U.S. State Department, democracy is also good for business. Countries that embrace political reforms are also more likely to pursue economic reforms that improve the productivity of businesses. Accordingly, since the mid-1980s, under President [[Ronald Reagan]], there has been an increase in levels of foreign direct investment going to emerging market democracies relative to countries that have not undertaken political reforms.<ref>{{cite web |title=US Dept of State - Democracy Dialogues: Why Democracy Matters to Business |url=http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/USINFO/Products/Webchats/bohn_27_mar_2007.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081114105330/http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/USINFO/Products/Webchats/bohn_27_mar_2007.html |archive-date=November 14, 2008 |access-date=2016-02-05}}</ref> Leaked cables in 2010 suggested that the "dark shadow of terrorism still dominates the United States' relations with the world".<ref name="twsDecZ16af3">{{cite news |last1=Shane |first1=Scott |last2=Lehren |first2=Andrew W. |date=November 28, 2010 |title=Leaked Cables Offer Raw Look at U.S. Diplomacy |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html |access-date=2010-12-26 |quote=The cables show that nearly a decade after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the dark shadow of terrorism still dominates the United States' relations with the world.}}</ref>

The United States officially maintains that it supports democracy and human rights through several tools.<ref name="2001-2009.state.gov"/> Examples of these tools are as follows:

* A published yearly report by the State Department entitled "Advancing Freedom and Democracy",<ref name="Advancing Freedom and Democracy"/> issued in compliance with ADVANCE Democracy Act of 2007 (earlier the report was known as "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record" and was issued in compliance with a 2002 law).<ref name="Supporting Human Rights and Democra"/>
* A yearly published "[[Country Reports on Human Rights Practices]]".<ref name="Human Rights Reports"/>
* In 2006 (under President [[George W. Bush]]), the United States created a "Human Rights Defenders Fund" and "Freedom Awards".<ref>{{cite web |date=December 15, 2006 |title=International Human Rights Week |url=https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/hr/c20063.htm |access-date=October 14, 2017}}</ref>
* The "Human Rights and Democracy Achievement Award" recognizes the exceptional achievement of officers of foreign affairs agencies posted abroad.<ref>{{cite web |last=Department Of State. The Office of Electronic Information |first=Bureau of Public Affairs |date=December 14, 2006 |title=2006 Human Rights and Democracy Achievement Award |url=https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/rls/77769.htm |website=2001-2009.state.gov}}</ref>
* The "Ambassadorial Roundtable Series", created in 2006, are informal discussions between newly confirmed U.S. [[Ambassador]]s and human rights and democracy non-governmental organizations.<ref>{{cite web |date=March 14, 2007 |title=Ambassadorial Roundtable Series |url=https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/drl/hr/c18970.htm |access-date=October 14, 2017}}</ref>
* The [[National Endowment for Democracy]], a private non-profit created by Congress in 1983 (and signed into law by President [[Ronald Reagan]]), which is mostly funded by the U.S. Government and gives cash grants to strengthen democratic institutions around the world.<ref>{{cite web |title=About the National Endowment for Democracy |url=https://www.ned.org/about/ |access-date=2021-10-24 |website=NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR DEMOCRACY |language=en-US}}</ref>

=== Support for authoritarian governments ===
{{See also|U.S. policy toward authoritarian governments}}

[[File:King Salman bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia bids farewell to President Barack Obama at Erga Palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.jpg|thumb|Barack Obama with King [[Salman of Saudi Arabia]], January 2015. According to Amnesty International, "For too long, the USA has shied away from publicly confronting [[Saudi Arabia]] over its human rights record, largely turning a blind eye to a mounting catalogue of abuses."<ref>"[https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/03/saudi-arabia-president-obama-must-not-shirk-responsibility-tackle-human-rights-during-visit/ Saudi Arabia: President Obama must not shirk responsibility to tackle human rights during visit]". [[Amnesty International]]. March 28, 2014.</ref>]]
Both currently and historically, the United States has been willing to cooperate with authoritarian governments to pursue its geopolitical goals.<ref name=":32">{{Cite book |last=Gärtner |first=Heinz |title=China and Eurasian powers in a Multipolar World Order 2.0: Security, Diplomacy, Economy and Cyberspace |date=2023 |publisher=[[Routledge]] |others=Mher Sahakyan |isbn=978-1-003-35258-7 |edition= |location=New York |pages=xxiii |chapter=Great Power Conflict |oclc=1353290533}}</ref> The U.S. has faced criticism for backing right-wing dictators that systematically violated human rights, such as [[Augusto Pinochet]] of Chile,<ref>[[Peter Kornbluh]] (September 11, 2013). ''[[The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability]]''. [[The New Press]]. {{ISBN|978-1-59558-912-5}} [https://books.google.com/books?id=WHYRBAAAQBAJ&pg=PR18 p. xviii]</ref> [[Alfredo Stroessner]] of Paraguay,<ref name="Hixson">Walter L. Hixson (2009). ''[http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300119121 The Myth of American Diplomacy: National Identity and U.S. Foreign Policy]''. [[Yale University Press]]. [https://books.google.com/books?id=DNId6HxkzQwC&pg=PA223 p. 223]. {{ISBN|978-0-300-15131-2}}</ref> [[Efraín Ríos Montt]] of Guatemala,<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/05/19/what-guilt-does-the-us-bear-in-guatemala What Guilt Does the U.S. Bear in Guatemala?] ''The New York Times''. May 19, 2013. Retrieved July 1, 2014.</ref> [[Jorge Rafael Videla]] of Argentina,<ref>Duncan Campbell (December 5, 2003). [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/06/argentina.usa Kissinger approved Argentinian 'dirty war']. ''The Guardian''. Retrieved August 29, 2015.</ref> [[Hissène Habré]] of Chad<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/world/africa/hissene-habre-leader-chad-war-crimes.html?_r=0 Hissène Habré, Ex-President of Chad, Is Convicted of War Crimes]. ''The New York Times''. May 30, 2016.</ref><ref>[http://www.democracynow.org/2016/5/31/from_us_ally_to_convicted_war From U.S. Ally to Convicted War Criminal: Inside Chad's Hissène Habré's Close Ties to Reagan Admin]. ''[[Democracy Now!]]'' May 31, 2016.</ref> [[Yahya Khan]] of Pakistan<ref>[http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/looking-away-from-genocide Looking Away from Genocide]. ''[[The New Yorker]]''. November 19, 2013.</ref> and [[Suharto]] of Indonesia.<ref name="Thaler" /><ref name="BlumenthalMcCormack" /> Critics have also accused the United States of facilitating and supporting [[United States and state terrorism|state terrorism]] in the [[Global South]] during the Cold War, such as [[Operation Condor]], an international campaign of political assassination and state terror organized by right-wing military dictatorships in the [[Southern Cone]] of South America.<ref name="Blakeley22">{{cite book |last=Blakeley |first=Ruth |url=http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415462402/ |title=State Terrorism and Neoliberalism: The North in the South |date=2009 |publisher=[[Routledge]] |isbn=978-0-415-68617-4 |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=rft8AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA22 22] & [https://books.google.com/books?id=rft8AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA23 23]}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=McSherry |first1=J. Patrice |title=State Violence and Genocide in Latin America: The Cold War Years (Critical Terrorism Studies) |publisher=[[Routledge]] |year=2011 |isbn=978-0-415-66457-8 |editor1=Esparza, Marcia |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=acGNAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA107 107] |chapter=Chapter 5: "Industrial repression" and Operation Condor in Latin America |quote=Operation Condor also had the covert support of the US government. Washington provided Condor with military intelligence and training, financial assistance, advanced computers, sophisticated tracking technology, and access to the continental telecommunications system housed in the Panama Canal Zone. |author-link1=J. Patrice McSherry |editor2=Henry R. Huttenbach |editor3=Daniel Feierstein |chapter-url=https://www.routledge.com/State-Violence-and-Genocide-in-Latin-America-The-Cold-War-Years/Esparza-Huttenbach-Feierstein/p/book/9780415496377}}</ref><ref name="Hixson" /><ref>[[Greg Grandin]] (2011). ''[http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/L/bo11643711.html The Last Colonial Massacre: Latin America in the Cold War]''. [[University of Chicago Press]]. [https://books.google.com/books?id=6FivSpNY2fkC&pg=PA75 p. 75]. {{ISBN|978-0-226-30690-2}}</ref>

[[File:President Ronald Reagan with President Hissène Habré of Chad.jpg|thumb|306x306px|[[Ronald Reagan]] with [[Hissène Habré]] at the [[White House]]]]

Regarding support for certain [[anti-Communist]] dictatorships during the [[Cold War]], a response is that they were seen as a necessary evil, with the alternatives even worse Communist or fundamentalist dictatorships. David Schmitz says this policy did not serve U.S. interests. Friendly tyrants resisted necessary reforms and destroyed the political center (though not in South Korea), while the '[[Realism (international relations)|realist]]' policy of coddling dictators brought a backlash among foreign populations with long memories.<ref>The United States and Right-Wing Dictatorships, 1965–1989. David F. Schmitz. 2006.</ref><ref name="autogenerated1">{{cite news |last=Ferguson |first=Niall |date=December 11, 2005 |title=Do the sums, then compare U.S. and Communist crimes from the Cold War |work=The Daily Telegraph |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3621643/Do-the-sums-then-compare-US-and-Communist-crimes-from-the-Cold-War.html |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3621643/Do-the-sums-then-compare-US-and-Communist-crimes-from-the-Cold-War.html |archive-date=January 12, 2022}}{{cbignore}}</ref> Some critical scholars and journalists, including [[Jason Hickel]] and [[Vincent Bevins]], argue that the U.S. backed  such dictators in order to reinforce Western business interests and to expand [[capitalism]] into countries of the Global South who were attempting to [[Third Worldism|pursue alternative paths]].{{sfn|Bevins|2020|pp=238–243}}<ref name="Blakeley22"/><ref>{{cite book |title=The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions |last=Hickel |first=Jason|author-link=Jason Hickel|date=2018 |publisher=[[Windmill Books]] |isbn=978-1786090034 |page=140 |quote=If we dig behind the rhetoric, it becomes clear that Western support for right-wing coups had little to do with Cold War ideology, and certainly nothing to do with promoting democracy (quite the opposite!); the goal, rather, was to defend Western economic interests. The veil of the Cold War has obscured this blunt fact from view.}}</ref>

The U.S. has been accused of complicity in war crimes for backing the [[Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen|Saudi Arabian-led intervention]] into the [[Yemeni Civil War (2014–present)|Yemeni Civil War]], which has triggered a humanitarian catastrophe, including a [[2016–2021 Yemen cholera outbreak|cholera outbreak]] and [[Famine in Yemen (2016–present)|millions facing starvation]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=Strobel |first1=Warren |last2=Landay |first2=Jonathan |date=August 5, 2018 |title=Exclusive: As Saudis bombed Yemen, U.S. worried about legal blowback |website=[[Reuters]] |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-yemen-idUSKCN12A0BQ}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Emmons |first=Alex |date=November 14, 2017 |title=Chris Murphy Accuses the U.S. of Complicity in War Crimes from the Floor of the Senate |work=[[The Intercept]] |url=https://theintercept.com/2017/11/14/chris-murphy-accuses-u-s-of-complicity-in-war-crimes-from-the-floor-of-the-senate/ |url-status=live |access-date=November 16, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171115110927/https://theintercept.com/2017/11/14/chris-murphy-accuses-u-s-of-complicity-in-war-crimes-from-the-floor-of-the-senate/ |archive-date=November 15, 2017 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |date=July 19, 2018 |title=PBS Report from Yemen: As Millions Face Starvation, American-Made Bombs Are Killing Civilians |work=[[Democracy Now!]] |url=https://www.democracynow.org/2018/7/19/pbs_report_from_yemen_as_millions |access-date=August 5, 2018}}</ref>

[[Niall Ferguson]] argues that the U.S. is incorrectly blamed for all of the human rights violations perpetrated by U.S.-supported governments. Ferguson writes that there is general agreement that Guatemala was the worst of the U.S.-backed regimes during the Cold War, but the U.S. cannot be credibly blamed for all of the estimated 200,000 deaths during the long [[Guatemalan Civil War]].<ref name="autogenerated1" /> The U.S. Intelligence Oversight Board writes that military aid was cut for long periods because of such violations, that the U.S. helped stop a coup in 1993, and that efforts were made to improve the conduct of the security services.<ref>[http://www.ciponline.org/iob.htm Report on the Guatemala Review] Intelligence Oversight Board. June 28, 1996.</ref>

=== Human rights ===
{{See also|United States war crimes|Human rights violations by the CIA|United States and state-sponsored terrorism|United States and state terrorism}}
[[File:Mobutu Nixon.jpg|thumb|[[Zaire]]an dictator [[Mobutu Sese Seko]] and Richard Nixon in Washington, D.C., October 1973]]         
Since the 1970s, issues of human rights have become increasingly important in American foreign policy.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Xypolia |first=Ilia |url=https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-99815-8 |title=Human Rights, Imperialism, and Corruption in US Foreign Policy |publisher=Palgrave |year=2022 |isbn=978-3-030-99814-1 |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-3-030-99815-8|s2cid=248384134 }}</ref><ref>Joe Renouard, ''Human Rights in American Foreign Policy: From the 1960s to the Soviet Collapse'' (U of Pennsylvania Press, 2016). 324 pp.</ref> Congress took the lead in the 1970s.<ref name="Crabb & Holt">{{cite book|last=Crabb|first=Cecil V.|title=Invitation to Struggle: Congress, the President and Foreign Policy|year=1992|publisher=Congressional Quarterly|location=Michigan|isbn=978-0-87187-622-5|pages=187–211|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vW2GAAAAMAAJ&q=Invitation+to+Struggle|edition= 2nd|author2=Pat Holt}}</ref> Following the [[Vietnam War]], the feeling that U.S. foreign policy had grown apart from traditional American values was seized upon by [[Donald M. Fraser|Representative Donald M. Fraser (D, MN)]], leading the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, in criticizing Republican Foreign Policy under [[Presidency of Richard Nixon|the Nixon administration]]. In the early 1970s, Congress concluded the Vietnam War and passed the [[War Powers Resolution|War Powers Act]]. As "part of a growing assertiveness by Congress about many aspects of Foreign Policy",<ref name="Forsythe">{{cite book|last=Forsythe|first=David|title=Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy: Congress Reconsidered|year=1988|publisher=University Press of Florida|location=Gainesville|isbn=978-0-8130-0885-1|pages=[https://archive.org/details/humanrightsusfor00fors/page/1 1]–23|url=https://archive.org/details/humanrightsusfor00fors|url-access=registration|quote=Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy: Congress Reconsidered.}}</ref> human rights concerns became a battleground between the Legislative and the Executive branches in the formulation of foreign policy. David Forsythe points to three specific, early examples of Congress interjecting its own thoughts on foreign policy:

# Subsection (a) of the International Financial Assistance Act of 1977: ensured assistance through international financial institutions would be limited to countries "other than those whose governments engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights".<ref name="Forsythe" />
# Section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended in 1984: reads in part, "No assistance may be provided under this part to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights."<ref name="Forsythe" />
# Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended in 1978: "No security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights."<ref name="Forsythe" />
These measures were repeatedly used by Congress, with varying success, to affect U.S. foreign policy towards the inclusion of Human Rights concerns. Specific examples include [[El Salvador]], [[Nicaragua]], [[Guatemala]] and [[South Africa]]. The Executive (from Nixon to Reagan) argued that the [[Cold War]] required placing regional security in favor of U.S. interests over any behavioral concerns of national allies. Congress argued the opposite, in favor of distancing the United States from oppressive regimes.<ref name="Crabb & Holt" /> Nevertheless, according to historian [[Daniel Goldhagen]], during the last two decades of the Cold War, the number of American client states practicing mass murder outnumbered those of the [[Soviet Union]].<ref>[[Daniel Goldhagen]] (2009). ''Worse Than War''. [[PublicAffairs]]. {{ISBN|978-1-58648-769-0}} p. 537
*"During the 1970s and 1980s, the number of American client states practicing mass-murderous politics exceeded those of the Soviets."</ref> [[John Henry Coatsworth]], a historian of Latin America and the provost of Columbia University, suggests the number of repression victims in Latin America alone far surpassed that of the USSR and its East European satellites during the period 1960 to 1990.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Coatsworth|first1=John Henry|author-link=John Henry Coatsworth |chapter= The Cold War in Central America, 1975–1991 | editor1-last=Leffler|editor1-first=Melvyn P.|editor1-link=Melvyn P. Leffler|editor2-last=Westad|editor2-first=Odd Arne|editor2-link=Odd Arne Westad|date=2012 |title=The Cambridge History of the Cold War (Volume 3)|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xjTVBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT230|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|page=230 |isbn=978-1-107-60231-1}}</ref> W. John Green contends that the United States was an "essential enabler" of "Latin America's political murder habit, bringing out and allowing to flourish some of the region's worst tendencies".<ref>W. John Green (June 1, 2015). [http://www.sunypress.edu/p-6060-a-history-of-political-murder-i.aspx ''A History of Political Murder in Latin America: Killing the Messengers of Change'']. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160310163927/http://www.sunypress.edu/p-6060-a-history-of-political-murder-i.aspx |date=March 10, 2016 }} [[SUNY Press]]. [https://books.google.com/books?id=NyezCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA147 p. 147]. {{ISBN|978-1-4384-5663-8}}</ref>

On December 6, 2011, Obama instructed agencies to consider [[LGBT rights by country or territory|LGBT rights]] when issuing financial aid to foreign countries.<ref>{{cite news|last=McVeigh|first=Karen|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/07/gay-rights-us-aid-criteria|title=Gay rights must be criterion for U.S. aid allocations, instructs Obama|newspaper=The Guardian|location=London|date=December 6, 2011|access-date=January 4, 2013}}</ref> He also criticized Russia's law discriminating against gays,<ref>{{cite news |last1=DeYoung |first1=Karen |author-link1=Karen DeYoung |last2=Wilson |first2=Scott |title=Obama administration targets anti-gay discrimination abroad |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/obama-administration-targets-anti-gay-discrimination-abroad/2011/12/06/gIQAUjbYaO_story.html |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |access-date=March 21, 2021 |date=December 6, 2011}}</ref> joining other western leaders in the [[boycott]] of the [[2014 Winter Olympics]] in Russia.<ref>{{cite news|last=Bershidsky|first=Leonid|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-19/putin-plays-games-to-salvage-olympics.html|title=Putin Plays Games to Salvage Olympics|publisher=Bloomberg.com|date=December 19, 2013|access-date=December 25, 2013}}</ref>

In June 2014, a Chilean court ruled that the United States played a key role in the murders of [[Charles Horman]] and [[Frank Teruggi]], both American citizens, shortly after the [[1973 Chilean coup d'état]].<ref>Pascale Bonnefoy (June 30, 2014). [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/world/americas/chilean-court-rules-us-had-role-in-murders.html?_r=0 Chilean Court Rules U.S. Had Role in Murders]. ''The New York Times''. Retrieved July 4, 2014.</ref>

==See also==
* [[American entry into World War I]]
* [[International relations, 1648–1814]]
* [[International relations of the Great Powers (1814–1919)]]
* [[International relations (1919–1939)]]
* [[United States and state-sponsored terrorism]]
* [[United States sanctions#Perceptions|Perceptions of the United States sanctions]]
* [[Criticism of United States foreign policy]]

===Diplomacy===
* [[Cowboy diplomacy]]
* [[List of diplomatic missions in the United States]]
* [[List of diplomatic missions of the United States]]
* [[United States and the United Nations]]
* [[United States foreign adversaries]]

===Intelligence===
* [[Extraordinary rendition]]
* [[Special Activities Division]]
* [[Torture and the United States]]

===Policy and doctrine===
* [[Anti-Americanism]]
* [[Bush Doctrine]]
* [[China containment policy]]
* ''[[Détente]]''
* [[Human rights in the United States]]
* ''[[Human Rights Record of the United States]]'' ([[People's Republic of China|Chinese]] [[State Council Information Office|publication]])
* [[Kirkpatrick Doctrine]]
* [[Powell Doctrine]]
* [[Special Relationship]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==Further reading==
{{refbegin|30em}}
* Bailey, Thomas. ''A Diplomatic History of the American People'' (10th ed. Prentice Hall, 1980) [https://archive.org/details/diplomatichistor0008bail_y8k0 online]
* {{cite book |last1=Bevins |first1=Vincent|author-link=Vincent Bevins |title= [[The Jakarta Method|The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World]] |date=2020 |publisher= [[PublicAffairs]] |isbn= 978-1-5417-4240-6}}
* Bokat-Lindell, Spencer. [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/20/opinion/biden-afghanistan-intervention.html?searchResultPosition=2 "Is the United States Done Being the World's Cop?"]. ''The New York Times''. July 20, 2021.
* Borgwardt, Elizabeth. [https://books.google.com/books?id=3GGmssOod2YC ''A New Deal for the World''] (Harvard University Press, 2005)
* [[Noam Chomsky|Chomsky, Noam]]. ''[[Hegemony or Survival|Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance]]'' (Metropolitan Books, 2003)
* Cohen, Warren I. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=WS6nU7EUHE0C The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations: Volume 4, America in the Age of Soviet Power, 1945–1991]'' (Cambridge University Press, 1995)
* Congressional Research Service. ''Canada-U.S. Relations'' (Congressional Research Service, 2021) [https://sgp.fas.org/crs/row/96-397.pdf 2021 Report], by an agency of the U.S. government; not copyright; Updated February 10, 2021.
* Crothers, Lane. "The cultural roots of isolationism and internationalism in American foreign policy". ''Journal of Transatlantic Studies'' 9.1 (2011): 21–34. [https://scholar.archive.org/work/vupazksa6jf2pee5632geeaymm/access/wayback/https://campusweb.franklinpierce.edu/ICS/icsfs/2_12r360.pdf?target=482d31c5-03e9-4168-93ae-c51b22cd19e6 online]
* Dueck, Colin. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=LKhB2ENzgvAC Hard Line: The Republican Party and U.S. Foreign Policy since World War II]'' (2010).
* Fawcett, Louise, ed. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=nNUiHaUzzNgC International Relations of the Middle East]'' (3rd ed. Oxford U.P. 2013)
* Foot, Rosemary, and Amy King. "Assessing the deterioration in China–US relations: US governmental perspectives on the economic-security nexus". ''China International Strategy Review'' 1.1 (2019): 39-50 [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42533-019-00005-y online]
* Franczak, Michael. [https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501763915/global-inequality-and-american-foreign-policy-in-the-1970s/#bookTabs=1 Global Inequality and American Foreign Policy in the 1970s]. (Cornell UP, 2022) On US foreign policy response to [[New International Economic Order]] (NEIO)[https://issforum.org/to/jrt15-23 online book review]
* Freedman, Lawrence. ''A Choice of Enemies: America Confronts the Middle East'' (PublicAffairs, 2009)
* Gries, Peter Hays. ''The Politics of American Foreign Policy: How Ideology Divides Liberals and Conservatives over Foreign Affairs'' (Stanford University Press, 2014)
* Hastedt, Glenn P. ''Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy'' (2004) [https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofam0000hast online] 
* Hastedt, Glenn P. ''American foreign policy'' (4th ed. 2000)  [https://openlibrary.org/books/OL36108M/American_foreign_policy online]
* {{cite journal
|first1=Margaret G.
|last1=Hermann
|year=1998
|title=The U.S. Use of Military Intervention to Promote Democracy: Evaluating the Record
|journal=International Interactions
|volume=24
|issue=2
|pages=91–114
|doi=10.1080/03050629808434922
|last2=Kegley
|first2=Charles
}}
* Herring, George C. ''From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776'' (Oxford History of the United States) (2008) [https://www.amazon.com/Colony-Superpower-Foreign-Relations-History/dp/0199765537/ excerpt]
* Hixson, Walter L.  ''The Myth of American Diplomacy: National Identity and U.S. Foreign Policy''. [[Yale University Press]], 2009.  {{ISBN|978-0-300-15131-2}}
* Hook, Steven W. and John Spanier. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=I-y3hBzjRTQC American Foreign Policy Since WWII]'' (19th ed. 2012)
* Ikenberry, G. John, ed. ''American Foreign Policy: Theoretical Essays'' (6th ed. Wadsworth, 2010), 640pp; essays by scholars
* Iriye, Akira. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=3moWFmpaRvQC The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations: Volume 3, The Globalizing of America, 1913–1945]'' (Cambridge University Press, 1995)
* Jentleson, Bruce W. ''American Foreign Policy: The Dynamics of Choice in the 21st Century'' (4th ed. W. W. Norton, 2010)
* Jentleson, Bruce W. and Thomas G. Paterson, eds. ''Encyclopedia of U.S. Foreign Relations'' (4 vol 1997), long historical articles by scholars [https://archive.org/search.php?query=title%3A%28Encyclopedia%20of%20U.S.%20foreign%20relations%29 online]
* LaFeber, Walter. ''The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations: The American Search for Opportunity, 1865–1913, vol. 2'' (Cambridge University Press, 1995)
* {{cite book
|last=Lowenthal
|first=Abraham F.
|date=March 1, 1991
|title=Exporting Democracy : The United States and Latin America
|publisher=The Johns Hopkins University Press
|isbn=978-0-8018-4132-3
|url=https://archive.org/details/exportingdemocra00lowe_1
}}
* McCormick, James M. et al. '' [https://books.google.com/books?id=r6MzZF7EZtIC The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence]'' (2012)
* McDougall, Walter. "Promised Land, Crusader State" (2004)
* Mead, Walter Russell, and Richard C. Leone. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=TmlDcE0BBrsC Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World]'' (2002)
* {{cite journal
|first=James
|last=Meernik
|year=1996
|title=United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy
|journal=Journal of Peace Research
|volume=33
|issue=4
|pages=391–402
|doi=10.1177/0022343396033004002
|jstor=424565
|s2cid=51897214
}}
*{{cite book |last=Moyn |first=Samuel |author-link=Samuel Moyn |date=2021 |title=Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War |publisher=[[Farrar, Straus and Giroux]] |isbn=978-0-374-17370-8}}
* Nichols, Christopher McKnight. "[https://books.google.com/books?id=uXDSQwdP3dgC Promise and Peril: America at the Dawn of a Global Age]" (2011)
* Paterson, Thomas G. and others. ''American Foreign Relations'' (6th ed. 2 vol, Wadsworth, 2004), a detailed history
* Perkins, Bradford. ''The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations: Volume 1, The Creation of a Republican Empire, 1776–1865'' (Cambridge University Press, 1995)
* [[Samantha Power|Power, Samantha.]] ''[[A Problem from Hell|"A Problem from Hell": America and the Age of Genocide]]'' (2002) covers Bosnia, Kosovo, Srebenica, and Rwanda; Pulitzer Prize.[https://openlibrary.org/works/OL264876W/A_Problem_from_Hell online] 
* Sergent, Daniel J. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=SYYbBQAAQBAJ A Superpower Transformed: The Remaking of American Foreign Relations in the 1970s]'' (2015)
*  Schulzinger, Robert. ''U.S. Diplomacy Since 1900'' (6th ed. 2008) [https://archive.org/details/usdiplomacysince0000schu online]
*  Schulzinger, Robert. ''A Companion to American Foreign Relations'' (Wiley Blackwell Companions to American History) (2006). 26 essays by scholars; emphasis on historiography
* {{cite book
|last=Smith
|first=Tony
|author2=Richard C. Leone
|year=1995
|title=America's Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century
|publisher=Princeton University Press
|isbn=978-0-691-04466-8
}}
* Watry, David M. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=OnqOAwAAQBAJ Diplomacy at the Brink: Eisenhower, Churchill, and Eden in the Cold War]''. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2014.
* Wittkopf, Eugene R. et al. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=jO4Kowz4KKcC American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process]'' (2007)
{{refend}}

=== Primary sources ===
{{refbegin|30em}}
* Engel, Jeffrey A. et al. eds. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=FLvzAgAAQBAJ America in the World: A History in Documents from the War with Spain to the War on Terror]'' (2014)
* [https://state.gov State.gov]—official departmental website and current policy
{{refend}}

==External links==
{{Wikiquote|Foreign policy of the United States}}
{{Commons category|Foreign policy of the United States}}
{{Library resources box}}
*[https://history.state.gov/countries/ History of the United States' relations with the countries of the world], from US State Department
*[https://history.state.gov/milestones/ Milestones of U.S. diplomatic history], from US State Department
*[https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/ Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS): Official Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Relations]
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20160303235133/http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/us/foraffrs.htm Foreign Relations and International Aid] from UCB Libraries G
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20081220124800/http://www.cfr.org/publication/9488/ U.S. Political Parties and Foreign Policy], a background Q&A by [[Council on Foreign Relations]]
*[https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R44891.pdf U.S. Role in the World: Background and Issues for Congress] [[Congressional Research Service]]
*[http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/FRUS Foreign Relations of the United States] 1861–1960 (full text from the University of Wisconsin-Madison Libraries)
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20170623070615/https://www.publicagenda.org/citizen/researchstudies/foreign-policy Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index] Tracking survey of American public attitudes on foreign policy, conducted by Public Agenda with ''[[Foreign Affairs]]'' magazine.

{{United States policy}}
{{Foreign relations of the United States |expanded=DPC}}
{{United States topics}}

[[Category:United States foreign policy| ]]
[[Category:Foreign policy|United States]]
[[Category:United States diplomacy]]
[[Category:Law of the United States]]