The New Right, Trade, and US Foreign Policy

In a period defined by shifting global power dynamics and economic uncertainty, a new generation of conservative thinkers is reimagining America's role on the world stage. Breaking from Cold War-era doctrines and the free-market policies that dominated post-Reagan conservatism, this emerging “New Right” promotes a more nationalist, “America First” approach that favors protectionist trade policies and limited foreign entanglements over traditional liberal internationalism.

On May 12, the Corporations and Society Initiative (CASI) at Stanford Graduate School of Business hosted a timely conversation with Curt Mills, Executive Director of The American Conservative.  Moderated by CASI student leader Tyler Walker, the wide-ranging discussion explored how ideological realignments are reshaping U.S. debates on diplomacy, trade, and global influence.

Mills began by tracing some of the personal and political experiences that ultimately shaped his worldview and positioned him as one of the leading voices in the New Right. Raised in the Washington, D.C. area, Mills recounted how events in the post-9/11 era deeply influenced his perceptions of American foreign policy. He described how the transformation of Washington into a hub of federal agencies, defense operations, and heightened security revealed the country’s significant shift toward more expansive global engagement.

“A lot of the companies that make up the military industrial complex, all of that stuff wasn't there in the nineties. Washington was just a backwater until very recently. A lot of those changes really coalesced around the 9/11 era.”

Mills specifically liked his own political awakening to the Iraq War (2003-2011), which he saw as a failure of a bipartisan foreign policy consensus. He explained how this disillusionment drew him to The American Conservative, a magazine founded in 2002 by figures such as Pat Buchanan and Scott McConnell to oppose U.S. interventionism, unlimited migration, and free trade policies.

He also noted the continuity of these themes from Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaigns (1992, 1996 and 2000) to Donald Trump’s rise, emphasizing that Trump’s 2016 platform drew on a coherent set of ideas that had been developing for decades. Mills said that while Trump’s celebrity played a major role in his political success, it also underscored the growing appetite for this “America First” realignment in U.S. strategy.

“I think these ideas are important,” he remarked, “whether you abhor them or sympathize with them.”

Mills pointed to Trump’s selection of J.D. Vance for his running mate as signaling a clear embrace of this ideological shift and one that diverges sharply from the Reagan-Bush legacy.

At its core, Mills said, this movement is driven by economic nationalism, particularly on trade. He noted that Trump has been focused on concerns about trade since the 1980s, arguably making this his most consistent political issue. Trump’s views reflect a deep skepticism that has been shaped by post-Cold War uncertainties about America's global economic position and the risks of overdependence on foreign powers like China.

Mills also addressed the broader implications for foreign policy, noting that the New Right increasingly views traditional alliances as costly and outdated. President Trump, he says, “thinks that these alliances are rip-offs. He thinks these alliances are dangerous, and I think he thinks these alliances, at least, in the status quo, do more harm than good.”

He suggested that Trump’s willingness to double down on tariffs and challenge conventional trade policy, even in a second term, shows a level of ideological commitment that goes beyond populist rhetoric.

“If Trump didn't believe in anything,” he said, “he would just try to make money off the presidency and keep the stock market up and ride off to the sunset. That is not what he's doing.”

The emerging vision, he argued, is a reordered international system built on controlled trade, economic sovereignty, and transactional diplomacy.

Mills explained that many of today’s ideas trace back to the 1990s, when bipartisan elites in both parties embraced what Mills called a “frictionless” vision of global capitalism. Trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), he said, were sold with little concern for the human consequences of industrial decline, particularly in the Midwest and Appalachia. Mills contrasted this elite optimism with the lived experience of many Trump voters, people who lost stable, well-paying factory jobs, struggled through the social and economic upheaval of the past three decades, and now feel alienated from the political establishment.

“I think we had as sharp a contrast as possible in the last election with Harris, who very much, in my opinion, comes out of the corporate wing of the California Democratic Party. Her closing pitch was to campaign with Liz Cheney in Wisconsin, and they wonder why they lost.”

Mills argued that for this voter base, Trump’s message that America has been “ripped off” both economically and militarily, resonates more deeply than assurances that everything is fine. He described this disaffection as less about ideology and more about a rejection of a political class that failed to protect their livelihoods and communities. In that context, the New Right’s mix of economic nationalism with foreign policy restraint signals  a reassessment of what American power is for, and who it should serve.

Mills was asked to share his thoughts on how success might be measured under the New Right’s vision for U.S. policy. Mills outlined a framework based on three core areas: foreign policy, trade, and immigration. While The American Conservative does not endorse political candidates, he suggested a Trump-led administration could be considered successful if it ended U.S. involvement in the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, conflicts he described as heavily dependent on American military and financial support. On trade, Mills said a central test would be whether nationalist policies like tariffs and reshoring can be implemented without triggering a recession. Successfully “landing the plane,” as he put it, would validate economic nationalism and prevent its rejection for another generation.

On immigration, Mills identified effective border control, without resorting to the more extreme idea of mass deportations, as the primary benchmark of success. He also noted that parts of the New Right’s agenda have already gained bipartisan traction and is reshaping the political mainstream.

“Trump was way out there as a hawk on China in 2016, and on tariffs. And Biden copied a lot of that stuff,” he said. “So, if the Republicans win again in '28, or a Democrat copies some of this, you'll know this has a real legacy.”

Mills responded to a question about the future of U.S. manufacturing by first addressing the role of Congress. He argued that Congress has become largely ineffective in shaping economic policy, with power increasingly concentrated in the executive branch. For businesses evaluating long-term investments, especially in a moment of policy flux, he suggested they pay closer attention to key administration figures like the Treasury and Commerce secretaries rather than congressional dynamics. In his view, while legislation like the extension of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act matters, most trade policy today operates almost entirely from the executive level.

He maintained that nationalist economic policies, including efforts to bring back manufacturing, can help, but he acknowledged they are only part of a broader solution. With transformative technologies like AI disrupting labor markets, he argued that all policy options should be considered, even those not traditionally associated with the political right.

CASI co-faculty director Anat Admati asked Mills to explain how a renewed focus on manufacturing might help reduce inequality. He responded that nationalist economic policies, particularly efforts to revive domestic manufacturing, can help but he emphasized they are only one piece of a larger puzzle. With transformative technologies like AI disrupting labor markets, Mills stressed the need for a broader policy conversation, noting that ideas once considered fringe, such as universal basic income, were being discussed even before the generative AI boom of 2023.

 In his view, all options should be on the table, even those outside the traditional bounds of conservative orthodoxy.

“I think we should be a more equal country economically, and I would be open to a number of proposals that traditionally would not be on the center right,” he added. “We should have a larger conversation as a country and one that is hopefully not as negative as has been the conversation my entire adult life.”