A graduate of Harvard Law School, Oren Cass served as an advisor to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. He founded the think tank American Compass in 2021, which — in contrast to the Reagan-era dogma of unrestricted free trade — advocates for government action, social welfare and protectionism. Close to U.S. Vice President JD Vance, the think tank embodies the Republican Party’s shift in the Trump era toward a national conservative right critical of economic liberalism.
Is the peace agreement with Iran presented by U.S. President Donald Trump an American defeat?
Oren CASS. — It seems to me that the United States finds itself in a weaker position than at the outset. The points we are negotiating or may agree to accept — as it is not very clear what has or has not been agreed upon — are no better than the previous situation and are probably worse in some respects. In certain parts of his coalition, Trump has caused serious and likely irreversible damage to his image and popularity. His decision to go to war was not popular. Yet it is up to the American people to define the sacrifices necessary for victory. This necessity, as frustrating as it may be, is one of the key differences between a republic and an empire, and is one of the most important powers held by the citizens of a republic.
Still, the administration as a whole deserves credit for agreeing to limit the damage. Because if there is one thing worse than leaders who start senseless wars, it is leaders who are then too stubborn to end them. This is the only experience young Americans have known, and the elites’ determination to repeat it at every opportunity is a major cause of cynicism and nihilism.
You have expressed regret that the ambitions of a global empire now take precedence over the interests of American citizens. Has the “America First” doctrine lost ground within the administration?
In some respects, I would say that, on the contrary, it has gained influence because it has proven to be right. It is difficult to interpret what is happening in the Trump White House because there can be as much doctrinal work and policy-making as you like, but ultimately, the president himself makes decisions that are often not ideological at all.
I think certain foundational works produced as part of the National Security Strategy — which very clearly signal a refocusing and a narrower definition of U.S. interests — remain very important indicators of the evolution of mainstream thinking within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. Trump has clearly chosen to act in a manner very inconsistent with that direction. His main argument was that all that was needed was to drop bombs. Of course, certain people — the war enthusiasts — told him that was an excellent idea. I think it will be much more difficult for political leaders, regardless of their party, to justify this kind of intervention in the future. Ultimately, this likely strengthens the position of those who advocate for a more modest and measured foreign policy.
How much weight do alliances with European countries carry in the administration’s power dynamics?
Regarding NATO, I think Trump took a very constructive approach by highlighting the shortcomings of these alliances. Even the Europeans acknowledged that they were benefiting from the system without paying the price and that this approach was not working. Whether on defense and security issues or on economic and trade matters, I think he rightly pinpointed many problems. By showing he was ready to shatter the old order, he paved the way to building something better.
But I do not think we will see him actually make that happen. I said after Trump’s reelection that he was a builder. Demolition is an important step in a development project. Tearing down old and obsolete structures is a necessary step. But if you then go on to demolish something else and just leave the rubble behind, you gain neither popularity nor effectiveness. The question with Trump has always been whether he would be able to move beyond the step of mere demolition to build something better in its place. Unfortunately, that is not what we are seeing.
U.S. Vice President JD Vance is close to your think tank. Do you think his involvement in the negotiations with Iran could harm his political future?
What I found very interesting is that a number of reports from the vice president’s office suggested that, at the start of the war, he was opposed to it. That is a remarkable political development. It would undoubtedly be very difficult to find another example — perhaps in all of American history — where a vice president’s team actively spreads the message that he opposes an ongoing military conflict sought by the president. There was no hostile reaction from Trump or his inner circle. The White House let the vice president take a very different stance.
The main risk, in my view, lies in the fact that he is being asked to intervene to resolve the situation in a favorable way, which is simply impossible given the reality on the ground. So it remains to be seen how people will interpret the situation: Either they will think that he intervened to successfully resolve the matter — thus avoiding an even deeper quagmire — or they will pin the blame on him.
A year ago, after Trump’s victory, you were celebrating the triumph of your ideas in Washington. How do you feel today?
I think things are still moving in a very encouraging direction. You only need to compare the second Trump administration to the first to see the differences, particularly regarding appointments and the measures taken on a variety of issues — from trade and immigration to labor law, including confrontations with Wall Street in some cases — not to mention industrial policy, among other things.
At the same time, I believe it is important to view Trump himself as a transitional figure in this entire process. He has brought many issues to light and enabled citizens to voice their opposition effectively. However, he has never truly embraced the direction advocated by American Compass. He remains strongly committed to tax cuts, continues to seek deals with Wall Street, and remains very supportive of low-skilled, low-wage immigration, among other things. The Republican Party has undergone a massive transformation. The question now is: What comes next? In what direction will conservatism evolve?
