Podcast Summary:

Podcast: New Books Network
Host: Leo Bader
Guest: Emma Ashford (Senior Fellow, Stimson Center)
Episode Title: First Among Equals: U.S. Foreign Policy in a Multipolar World (Yale UP, 2025)
Date: October 5, 2025

Overview

In this episode, host Leo Bader interviews Emma Ashford about her new book, First Among Equals: U.S. Foreign Policy in a Multipolar World. Ashford analyzes the decline of America’s unipolar moment, dissects contemporary debates on grand strategy, and advocates for a restrained, realist approach to U.S. global engagement in a world increasingly characterized by multipolarity. The discussion is timely, deeply engaging, and offers pragmatic insights into the challenges and choices facing U.S. policymakers.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The End of the Unipolar Moment (02:45–05:28)

• Ashford traces the U.S.'s rise to unipolarity after the 1991 Soviet collapse—“America standing sort of above everybody else in the world”—and how the period was defined by “transformative or even crusading ideologies” (03:27).
• Examples:
  • Attempts to lock in American military primacy
  • Rewriting international norms (e.g., “Responsibility to Protect”)
  • NATO expansion & war on terror as emblematic projects
• All these efforts, Ashford argues, ultimately failed and bred public disillusionment:

  “They seem very exciting. They’re put into practice. And then…the thing that ties them all together…is ultimately they all fail.” (05:01–05:12)

The Gradual Shift Away from Consensus (05:28–06:53)

• Ashford highlights a slow turn in U.S. foreign policy debate, pinpointing the 2015–16 campaign, especially Trump's public criticism of the Iraq War, as a meaningful inflection point—even if change was incremental.
• She notes elite opinion lagged behind public skepticism until after 2016.

Defining Today’s World Order: Is it Multipolarity? (06:53–10:09)

• Terms like “bipolar”, “multipolar”, and “post-post Cold War” are debated; Ashford settles on “unbalanced multipolarity.”
• The U.S. and China are “out ahead of the pack…becoming more equal” (08:01), but a cadre of powerful “second-tier” states (Russia, UK, Japan, South Korea, Australia) play growing roles.
• Importance of not seeing the world solely as a U.S.–China rivalry:

  “It’s those middle powers…that the US is going to have to work with and through and around in order to achieve its goals.” (09:39–09:49)

Four Schools of U.S. Foreign Policy (10:09–13:24)

• Ashford outlines four current policy orientations:
  1. Liberal Primacists: Closest to Biden admin, focused on protecting global liberal order.
  2. America First Hawks: Unilateral, militarily assertive, uninterested in multilateralism (e.g., Trump admin).
  3. Progressive World Builders: Ideological, internationalist approach (rising within the Democratic party).
  4. Realists/Restrainers: Focused on U.S. interests, wary of overreach—Ashford identifies here.
• Quote:

  “These debates are not particularly happening between the parties as much as they’re happening within the parties.” (14:42–14:46)

Realist Internationalism: Ashford’s Proposed Approach (15:01–17:01)

• Advocates pragmatic realism—balancing U.S. means and ends, learning from historic moments of successful restraint (e.g., Eisenhower, Nixon).

  “…returning to some of those moments in American history where we have successfully pursued…an ecumenical, realist approach to the world.” (15:29–15:38)

• Emphasizes the need to:
  • Avoid overextension
  • Focus on U.S. national interests
  • Prevent accidental conflict

Retrenchment: The Case for Less U.S. Presence in Europe & the Middle East (17:01–22:05)

• Middle East:
  • U.S. should revert to a small maritime and air presence; large troop deployments are unnecessary and an artifact of path dependency and regional politics, not strategy.
• Europe:
  • U.S. should pursue a phased withdrawal, focusing first on pulling troops, and later reducing advanced enablers/intelligence assets.
  • European states are wealthy and capable enough to assume more defense responsibility.

  “The U.S. should be the last resort rather than the first resort in Europe.” (19:17–19:20)

• Retrenchment ≠ complete isolation: U.S. would still coordinate, just not lead from the front.

Potential Costs: Control vs. Capability (22:05–23:45)

• Acknowledges the traditional U.S. tradeoff: control in Europe vs. getting allies to carry more burden.
• Ashford argues overlapping interests will keep U.S.–European cooperation strong even as U.S. reduces its direct presence.

Why Maintain a Large Middle East Presence? (23:45–25:54)

• Attributes U.S. entrenchment to:
  • Institutional inertia (e.g., CENTCOM influence)
  • Alliance politics (Israel, Gulf states)
  • Fear of terrorism
  • Argues these are political—not strategic—drivers.

Leaning In: U.S. in the Indo-Pacific (25:54–28:15)

• China is the only credible peer/rival; U.S. should focus resources there, but not overmilitarize.
• Preference for “flexible coalitions” and economic/trade engagement (e.g., AUKUS), not just military buildup.
• Warns against “weaponizing” trade and technology through sanctions/tariffs; advocates positive economic engagement to compete with China.

Finding a Stable Path with China (30:20–32:19)

• U.S. and China could find an uneasy but workable modus vivendi.
• Urges against “hysteria and panic” (e.g., overreactions like the balloon incident), and favors risk mitigation over escalation.
• Taiwan is a key flashpoint:

  “There are ways that the US can try and bolster Taiwan without necessarily directly threatening China.” (31:47–31:52)

Where to Begin? Practical Steps Toward Realist Strategy (32:19–35:10)

• Gradualism is necessary; transformation won’t come overnight.
• Focus first on Europe, leveraging current momentum for allies to step up.
• Urgent attention to Taiwan issue to reduce risks of conflict.
• Suggests more investment in hemispheric/Latin American ties as low-hanging fruit.

Memorable Quotes

• “They seem very exciting. They're put into practice. And then…the thing that ties them all together…is ultimately they all fail.”
  —Emma Ashford (05:01)

• “It’s those middle powers…that the US is going to have to work with and through and around in order to achieve its goals.”
  —Emma Ashford (09:39)

• “These debates are not particularly happening between the parties as much as they’re happening within the parties.”
  —Emma Ashford (14:42)

• “…returning to some of those moments in American history where we have successfully pursued…an ecumenical, realist approach to the world.”
  —Emma Ashford (15:29)

• “The U.S. should be the last resort rather than the first resort in Europe.”
  —Emma Ashford (19:17)

• “I think the current policy approach…to erect barriers around US technology, I think that’s precisely the wrong approach that potentially just turns us into a military fighting force with absolutely nothing else to offer the world.”
  —Emma Ashford (28:54)

• “We need to get to a place where we’re not doing [panic]. …It’s not just about leaning in. It's about trying to mitigate the risks of conflict while continuing to compete.”
  —Emma Ashford (31:22, 32:12)

Key Timestamps

• 02:45 – The unipolar moment: how it rose and fell
• 05:39 – When consensus on U.S. grand strategy fractured
• 07:12 – What multipolarity means today
• 10:09 – Four camps in U.S. grand strategy
• 15:01 – Ashford’s “realist internationalism” explained
• 17:01 – Retrenchment in Europe and the Middle East
• 22:05 – Does U.S. lose influence by pulling back?
• 23:59 – Why path dependence keeps the U.S. in the Middle East
• 25:54 – The right way for U.S. to engage the Indo-Pacific
• 28:52 – Competing with China on economic grounds
• 30:34 – Can the U.S. and China reach stable coexistence?
• 32:39 – Where to begin reforming U.S. grand strategy

Tone and Style

Emma Ashford’s analysis is measured, pragmatic, and rooted in a desire to see U.S. resources and ambitions brought into realistic balance. The conversation is substantive yet accessible, reflective of the spirit of the New Books Network: evidence-based, clear, and engaged with core policy debates, but never jargony or aloof.

Recommended for listeners interested in U.S. grand strategy, changing world order, and contemporary policy debates from a realist perspective.