Bait and switch?

Presidents and wars

In 1916 Woodrow Wilson campaigned for reelection on the slogan “He kept us out of war.” Europe had been at war for two years, during which Wilson proclaimed and then defended American neutrality. He sailed to victory in the 1916 election on the strength of his apparent promise to maintain American neutrality during a second term. But he had been scarcely reinaugurated before he went to Congress and asserted that the world must be made “safe for democracy” by America's entry into the war.

In 1940 Franklin Roosevelt culminated his campaign for a third term by pledging to American mothers and fathers, “Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." War had been raging in Asia since 1937 and in Europe since 1939. Roosevelt had edged America closer to war by supporting Britain in its fight against Nazi Germany. Critics of war led by Charles Lindbergh accused Roosevelt of wanting to provoke an incident that would make war inevitable. Roosevelt's statement was intended to counter the accusations and allay voters' concerns that the United States might soon be at war. It worked. Roosevelt was reelected. Within months he persuaded Congress to involve America more deeply in the conflicts abroad by increasing American aid to countries fighting Germany and Japan. In December 1941 Japan retaliated by attacking Pearl Harbor and drawing the United States into the war.

In 1968 Richard Nixon ran for president alluding to a “secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam. American involvement in Vietnam had begun under Harry Truman, escalated under Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy, and expanded dramatically under Lyndon Johnson. The American people were weary of the conflict, and Nixon's promise appeared to indicate he would end it. He won the election, and in scarcely more than a year had expanded the fighting into Cambodia.

In 2000 George W. Bush criticized the administration of Bill Clinton for engaging in "nation-building” in the Balkans and elsewhere. Such efforts led to needless, endless wars, Bush said. A Bush administration would be more prudent. Bush defeated Clinton's vice president, Al Gore, and within a year had embarked on what proved to be the longest war in American history, in Afghanistan. Eighteen months after ordering the invasion of Afghanistan, Bush launched a second war, against Iraq.

In 2016 Donald Trump ran for president on the slogan "America First.” For too long, said Trump, Americans had fought other people's wars. It was time to reconsider America's commitments overseas. In 2024 Trump ran again, criticizing in particular the support Joe Biden was giving to Ukraine in that country's war against Russia. Trump said he would end the Ukraine war on his first day in office. He would put America first and not squander American resources on distant wars not of America's making. Trump was elected a second time. On June 21, 2025, he sent American forces to war against Iran.

There seems to be a pattern. Candidates for president, presumably believing Americans prefer peace to war, say they won't lead the United States into war. But upon getting elected they change their tune and do precisely that.

What's going on?

In the cases of Wilson, Roosevelt and Nixon, the candidates were dissimulating — really, lying. Wilson had already concluded that the United States needed to enter the European war in order to prevent a repetition of that calamitous contest. America must take leadership of the world. Wilson knew this wouldn't sit well with voters, and he deliberately misled them about his thinking.

FDR did the same thing. A closeted Wilsonian, Roosevelt emphatically believed that the United States must become the leader of the world. But he knew that saying so would jeopardize his chances of an unprecedented third term. So he said the opposite.

Richard Nixon followed the mendacious lead of Wilson and Roosevelt. Nixon intended to get the United States out of Vietnam, but he wanted to make a statement to China and the Soviet Union in the process. They mustn't think America was abandoning its commitments to allies. He intensified bombing of North Vietnam and expanded the conflict into Cambodia, through which North Vietnam was supplying communist forces in South Vietnam. Nixon had planned all this out but concluded it would alienate voters to hear it.

Was Donald Trump's America First slogan another example of presidential bait and switch?

Perhaps not. Wilson, Roosevelt and Nixon were longtime students of American foreign policy. People disagreed with them, but no one accused them of not having thought carefully about the policies they pursued. The three knew quite well while running for president what they intended to do once elected.

Trump is a different sort. He has notions about foreign policy but shows few signs of giving it prolonged, detailed thought. The decision to attack Iran seems as spontaneous and opportunistic as many things Trump does.

Yet Trump voters have reason to feel surprised or even betrayed. The clear tenor of Trump's 2024 campaign was that a Trump presidency would involve fewer American commitments overseas, not more. Trump would end wars, not start them.

Whatever the bait-and-switch connection, another theme runs through American history from Wilson to Trump. It lay at the heart of the argument Lindbergh made against Roosevelt in 1940, namely that presidents were acquiring too much power over decisions about war and peace. Wilson and Roosevelt wound up getting congressional declarations of war, but they did so by provoking attacks against the United States. Nixon and Trump didn't bother consulting Congress, as Lindbergh’s warning had come true: that a Roosevelt victory in 1940 would make the president almost a dictator over foreign policy.

The result is the situation America finds itself in with Trump. Whatever he was thinking while running for president, the American decision for war against Iran or any other country essentially lies with him alone.

This isn't what the framers of the Constitution intended in assigning Congress authority over war and peace. But it's what we've got.

And it’s what we’ll have until American voters insist otherwise.