Safe over similar? A structural interpretation of changing patterns in U.S. democracy promotion

From the outset of his first presidency, Donald Trump rejected the liberal-democratic teleology anchoring U.S. grand strategy in favour of a security-first approach. Rather than a clean break, this sharpened a dilemma for hegemonic powers: whether to seek stability by making secondary states politically similar or strategically safe. This ‘political regime dilemma’ drives U.S. foreign policy oscillations, particularly in democracy promotion. This article offers a structural explanation, arguing that when the international status quo is stable, hegemonic powers pursue long-term transformative goals like reshaping domestic orders. Conversely, when the status quo is challenged by strategic rivals, they prioritise short-term objectives, notably securing alignment or neutrality amid intensifying great power competition. The article tests this hypothesis through a diachronic comparison of U.S. administrations since 1993, showing how structural conditions shaped the prioritisation of democracy promotion within American grand strategy.