President Trump’s isolationist foreign policy has decreased international interventions, but the U.S. midterm election serves as an opportunity for American voters to show the international community democracy is still alive.

International pressure on an individual nation is a good tool for preserving democracy. Through various methods of economic sanctions, international trade policies, and human rights frameworks, democracy is kept in check. President Trump’s isolationist foreign policy has caused several U.S. allies to reconsider their alliance, causing a drift between America and the international community. These actions, particularly if continued, cause concern for the preservation of democracy. As Trump continues to threaten allies with sanctions, tariffs and even war, animosity in the international community will only rise. 

The U.S. image is declining in the international community. Currently, international leaders still separate Trump’s actions from historic U.S. policies and allyships, but that may not continue to hold true. Canada has remained one of America’s most trusted allies through much of history, but even their leaders have been forced to find allyship elsewhere, predominantly through their trade patterns. European polling shows that Europeans still like America, but the window of opportunity may be limited. If Americans that disagree with the current administration fail to use the 2026 midterm elections to hold President Trump accountable through the ballot box, the international community may become less willing to distinguish the actions of his administration from the will of the American people.

Trump’s isolationist foreign policy:

International allies have cause for concern. Foreign policy initiatives instituted by the president show a lack of consistency when it comes to supporting historic allies. His imposition of tariffs on allies, particularly Canada and Mexico, as well as the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Ontario has begun to isolate two of America’s closest allies. He has publicly threatened and considered withdrawing the U.S. from NATO, and has withdrawn from multilateral treaties, such as the Paris Climate Agreement. The launch of the unconstitutional military attack in Venezuela to capture leader Nicolás Maduro has contributed to the world’s uncertainty when it comes to the Trump Administration’s foreign policy, particularly after running on a non-interventionist U.S. military policy platform. 

These foreign affairs decisions have contributed to more negative opinions of the U.S. As of June 2025, many of the nations surveyed by Pew Research Center have developed more negative views of the U.S. since their last survey. In fact, ratings of the U.S. overall have dropped “significantly” in 15 countries since last year, with Mexico having one of the more drastic decreases, going from 61% favorability in 2024, to 29% today.  

What does this mean for the erosion of U.S. democracy?

Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) define democratic erosion as the legal weakening of critical democratic norms and institutions, typically orchestrated by those in power under the guise of reform or national security. President Trump’s actions have not only weakened domestic democratic norms, but have also challenged international democratic norms. 

In an era where threats of a delegative democracy face U.S. citizens, the president’s inconsistent policies and relationships with foreign allies worsens democracy and erodes what has historically been an accountability mechanism. As defined by O’Donnell in “Delegative Democracy,” horizontal accountability is the process by which the executive is held accountable by other forms of government. The actions by President Trump to override congressional authority and put pressure on the courts limits horizontal accountability mechanisms within the U.S. Therefore, the responsibility of accountability falls to international checks on the executive branch, referred to as external accountability by Cambridge University Press. 

Diplomatic and economic sanctions instituted by pressures abroad help maintain democracy, so the destruction of these international ties contributes to democratic erosion. 

These attempts by Trump to consolidate power and weaken horizontal accountability are not ambiguous, there are clear efforts by President Trump where he has acted against the intentions of the American people. Two-thirds of Americans disapprove of President Trump’s handling of the U.S. military action in Iran, a conflict that has been unpopular with the public since the start. Despite heavy partisanship, both Republicans and Republican-leaning independents have been negative about the conflict and Democrats have remained disapproving since February, when the U.S. first struck Iran in the most recent war development. 

This war serves as a good example of the horizontal accountability erosions. Historically, the president has needed congressional approval to start a war, as per the War Powers Resolution of 1973. This resolution deems that a president must terminate U.S. participation in war hostilities within 60 days of absent congressional authorization. The Trump Administration argued that while the war began on Feb. 28, 2026, the ceasefire deal made on April 7 satisfied the obligation. Meanwhile, the U.S. continued to launch attacks on Iran into the summer. This is one instance of a situation in which both vertical and horizontal accountability did not limit the president’s actions. By overriding the legislative branch and ignoring the significant drop in approval ratings by citizens, unilateral power to the president increased, undermining the systems of democracy that have remained steadfast. 

If domestic systems of accountability prove ineffective, international pressure only increases in need. But the president’s actions with this war also significantly discouraged international partners with allies of the U.S., continuing to instill a sense of fear and unpredictability with foreign allies. If foreign allies don’t trust America, they won’t intervene, leaving fewer opportunities to place checks on the executive.  

So, what does this mean for the upcoming U.S. midterm elections?

Should the U.S. accept this decreased trust by many nations, amid low confidence in the current president? While it is true that the United States prides itself on a democracy with free and fair elections, assumptions that the current policies by the president represent the future of U.S. policy seem predisposed. 

American citizens have an opportunity to put a check on the president this election cycle. By voting in this midterm election, the world will see whether American citizens agree with the actions of the president for the last two years, as the majority of American voters did in 2024, or if their perspectives have shifted. If voters select Democratic leaders to take back the House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate, Republicans will lose the government trifecta, and there will be one more check on the president. If voters choose not to put checks on the president, it will be harder for world leaders to assume President Trump is acting solely of his own volition, and the U.S. will have difficulty regaining the trust of long-standing allies. 

If foreign leaders are willing to distinguish a country’s citizens from its leader, it falls on the responsibility of the citizens to demonstrate that their leader does not speak for them. This is what will be decided in just under a month.