Follow us on social

Ron Paul (R-Tx.) and John McCain (R-Az.)

How Ron Paul took a battering ram to GOP foreign policy

As the feisty former congressman turns 90 in August, it’s worth recalling how he shaped conservative views today on war and peace.

Analysis | Washington Politics

Ron Paul is turning 90 on August 20. At 72, he was a revolutionary.

Today, there is a raucous foreign policy debate within the Republican Party. Populist, realist and libertarian “America First” Republicans argue against endless wars and for fiscal responsibility, while holdover hawks continue to insist on a robust U.S. hand and military presence anywhere they can get it, no matter the cost.

In 2008, there was no debate. While broad public opinion had soured on the Iraq War and President George W. Bush’s approval reached historic lows, the GOP of that era had spent nearly a decade marinating in blind support for militarism, the PATRIOT Act, and torture in the name of “counterterrorism."

War was who Republicans were. It wasn’t a question. It was GOP identity. Sen. John McCain became the 2008 GOP presidential nominee based on that identity, and lost.

Throughout the 2008 Republican presidential primaries, Congressman Ron Paul tried to warn his party that America’s interventionist foreign policy had not only been a disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan, but was bad for America in general — and Republicans in particular.

They couldn’t hear it. Like clockwork, each time Paul criticized U.S. foreign policy during the debates, Republicans accused him of siding with the enemy. After explaining how perpetual American intervention created tension abroad that led to 9/11, Fox News moderator Chris Wallace said to Paul, "You're saying we should take our marching orders from al Qaeda?"

Paul replied, citing the need for a congressional declaration of war, "No, I'm saying we should take our marching orders from the Constitution!"

The other candidates all laughed at Paul. Telling Republicans to tone down the warmongering in 2008 was like telling Sydney Sweeney to lighten up on sex appeal in 2025.

Paul did not win the nomination, but became arguably the most influential GOP candidate in that election precisely because he was the only Republican arguing for a more restrained foreign policy. He became one of the most popular candidates, in terms of raw grassroots support, based on his staunch antiwar message, drawing thousands of supporters to his rallies, disproportionately young.

Paul’s popularity exploded due to one particular debate. As Jim Antle observed at The American Conservative weeks before Paul retired from Congress in early 2013, “On May 15, 2007, the Republican contenders debated in Columbia, South Carolina. Paul argued that American intervention in the Middle East — bombings, sanctions, and efforts to destabilize foreign governments — helped turn local populations and their co-religionists against us, to the point that they would contemplate terrorist attacks like those on 9/11.”

“Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attacks, sir?” asked the Fox News moderator.

“Paul had said nothing of the sort,” Antle continued, “but neither did he react to the implication behind the question as forcefully as he might have. Giuliani pounced. ‘That’s an extraordinary statement, as somebody who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq,’ he said. ‘I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11.’”

The audience erupted. After the applause died down Giuliani demanded that Paul take back what he said, “I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us he didn’t really mean that.”

That’s when Ron Paul doubled down. He detailed the CIA term “blowback” as an explanation for 9/11, an argument that Bush-Cheney, neocon propaganda-soaked audience definitely did not want to hear and resented Paul for making it.

But after years of foreign policy failure in the Middle East, certain kinds of Republicans were open to Paul’s message. Many independents were drawn to his campaign. Paul also attracted a significant number of progressives (Paul later said he would put his longtime friend, progressive Democrat Congressman Dennish Kucinich in his cabinet). For the Paul faithful, it was all about the ideas.

At the time of Paul and Giuliani’s heated exchange, Rudy was considered the frontrunner and Ron was the gadfly. By the time the 2008 election was over, Paul would receive one million primary votes, more than Giuliani who dropped out. In 2012, Paul doubled that number to two million. The nominees in both cycles, McCain and later, Mitt Romney, both ran and lost on Bush-style neoconservative foreign policy agendas.

The next Republican actually elected president ran on ‘America First’ foreign policy platform that promised to end “endless wars” and even went so far as to claim George W. Bush “lied” America into the Iraq War. He sounded like Ron Paul.

Has Donald Trump always lived up to his antiwar rhetoric? Not even close.

Did he change the foreign policy conversation in the Republican Party? Undeniably.

Today, your typical, red-meat, rightwing Republican might talk about foreign policy in ways that seem closer to Paul than McCain or Romney. Conservatives can denounce foreign intervention and aid and those conversations now fit comfortably on the right. Whereas Paul’s Republican detractors used to love to smear him as siding with terrorists, hawks, neocons, and Democrats who reflexively accuse Trump of being “Putin’s puppet” are immediately suspect to MAGA members. That trick just doesn’t work anymore with most of the Republican base.

Trump ran for president within a post Bush-Cheney GOP that didn’t know what it stood for anymore other than being against Barack Obama. It quickly came to stand for Trump, whatever that might have meant in any given moment, but that upheaval did usher in a radical rethinking of Republican foreign policy.

Paul ran for president when war was the Republican religion, undeniable and unassailable, in which heretics were to be excommunicated. Later, it was so many neocons who would actually jump ship.

What Republican foreign policy is in 2025 is a very different conversation than it was in 2008. Donald Trump might have upended that consensus, but 17 years ago Ron Paul became the first candidate to so fearlessly question it, leading to more challenges and changing even more minds ever since.


Top Image Credit: US presidential candidate US Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) (L) makes his point as US Senator John McCain (R-AZ ) adjusts his shirt collar as they take part in the CNN/Los Angeles Times Republican presidential debate at Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California January 30, 2008. Air Force One used by Reagan is in background. REUTERS/Robert Galbraith (UNITED STATES) US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2008 (USA)
Analysis | Washington Politics
Benjamin Netanyahu
Top image credit: Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, also seen on a television monitor, addresses the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York October 1, 2013. (Reuters/Adrees Latif)

Israel is the main source of instability in the Middle East

Middle East

Is conflict in the Middle East at an inflection point? It might seem so, given how international outrage over Israel’s lethal conduct in the Gaza Strip has become increasingly intense and widespread in recent weeks.

Several major Western countries that previously had declined to join most other members of the United Nations in formally recognizing a Palestinian state used the opening of the current session of the General Assembly as the occasion to take that step. Popular demonstrations in the West in support of the Palestinians have been as large and conspicuous as ever, and recent polls show a sharp decline in the American public’s support for Israel.

keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top image credit: Handout - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy meets with U.S. President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, on Tuesday, September 23, 2025. Photo via Ukrainian Presidential Press Office/ABACAPRESS.COM via REUTERS

Trump's latest line on Ukraine isn't a 'shift,' it's a hand-off

Europe

U.S. President Donald Trump’s rhetorical shift on Ukraine isn’t a call to arms. But it’s a dangerous attempt to outsource escalation to Europe. And it’s a strategy that could easily reverse again.

Trump’s recent social media pronouncement on Ukraine, following his meeting with President Volodymyr Zelensky, appears to be a stunning about-face. Just days ago, the core of his “peace plans” was the grim realpolitik of forcing Kyiv to accept territorial losses. Now, he declares Russia a “paper tiger” and seems to endorse fighting to Ukraine’s “final victory”, including “winning back” all the territories it lost to Russia since 2014.

But a closer look reveals this isn’t a genuine shift toward a hawkish policy. Instead, it’s the unveiling of a profoundly dangerous strategy. To understand it, we must see it as the outcome of a successful influence campaign by Kyiv, its European partners and their allies within the U.S. administration, who, after Trump's meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska, faced a clear set of objectives.

Their minimum task was to prevent Trump from applying intense pressure on Zelensky to accept Putin’s terms for a peace settlement, most notably Russia’s territorial gains in Donbas and Ukraine’s permanent neutrality (i.e. no NATO membership). More ambitiously, they sought to convince Trump to return to a Biden-era policy of direct aid. And their maximum, albeit distant, task was to gain approval for high-risk actions like a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

Faced with these pressures, Trump had three broad options: pressure Zelensky (facing major resistance from Ukraine, Europe and powerful forces within the U.S.), pressure Putin (with limited leverage and high escalation risks), or essentially “wash his hands” of direct responsibility.

The latest events show that Kyiv and Europe have achieved their minimum goal. Trump is not pressuring Zelensky to accept Putin’s terms. Moreover, he has effectively taken the issue of a rapid ceasefire off the table, a major win for leaders who fear a negotiated compromise. They now have a “green light” from the American president himself to continue fighting.

However, this shift is almost entirely rhetorical. While the tone has swung from advocating a deal to cheering for victory, the underlying substantive policy — American disengagement — has remained remarkably consistent. Before, he argued that Ukraine should cede land because the U.S. should not be involved. Now, he argues Ukraine can win back its land because the U.S. should not be involved, except as a merchant. The core “America First” principle of avoiding costly entanglements is unchanged; only the public justification for it has flipped to accommodate political pressures.

This disengagement is articulated not just by Trump’s transactional arms-sales approach, but by his key officials. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently laid bare the doctrine’s stark logic, dismissing fears of Russian expansion by stating, “All I hear from you is that Putin wants to march into Warsaw. The one thing I'm sure of is that Putin isn't marching into Boston.”

This statement is a clear signal that the administration’s fundamental priority is insulating the American homeland, not defending the NATO frontier, much less a non-NATO country like Ukraine. This “re-orientation” was likely influenced by a combination of factors, including Trump’s genuine frustration with Putin’s refusal to accept a ceasefire without a broader political settlement, incidents with Russian drones and aircraft violating NATO’s airspace, and a concerted flow of information suggesting Ukrainian strength and Russian weakness.

Yet, this apparent victory for Ukraine and its allies comes with a massive catch. Trump has not chosen deeper U.S. involvement. Instead, he has chosen his third option: to “wash his hands.” While his rhetoric is bellicose, his policy is transactional. The U.S., he suggests, will be a weapons wholesaler to Europe, not a direct funder. For Kyiv, this is far from ideal, as it must now rely primarily on European aid, which may be insufficient.

Critically, we must remember Trump’s penchant for abrupt reversals. Not long ago, he claimed Zelensky had “no cards” and that Ukraine would lose to Russia, a more powerful nation. Then he threatened Putin with sanctions, only to later drop those ultimatums, meet with him, and hailed a breakthrough. Now, Russia is a “paper tiger.”

keep readingShow less
US pressure risks plunging Lebanon into violence
Top photo credit: Tyre city, Southern Lebanon, 8-23-2017: Lebanese army soldiers performing the military salute ceremony (Shutterstock/crop media)

US pressure risks plunging Lebanon into violence

Middle East

Recent remarks about the necessity of disarming Hezbollah by U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack have stunned Lebanese leaders, who are concerned that any forcible attempt to carry out Washington’s wishes risks plunging the country into renewed sectarian violence and possibly even civil war.

“We don’t want to arm [the Lebanese Armed Forces] so they can fight Israel? I don’t think so,” Barrack, who also serves as Special Envoy to Syria, said in a recent media interview. “So you’re arming them so they can fight their own people, Hezbollah. Hezbollah is our enemy. Iran is our enemy.”

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.