At the Manama Dialogue security summit in Bahrain on November 1, 2025, U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard delivered a message that echoed like a turning point in American foreign policy. Speaking before an audience of Middle Eastern officials and global security experts, Gabbard declared an end to the United States’ long-standing strategy of “regime change or nation building” under President Donald Trump’s administration. Her remarks, reported by the Associated Press and several international outlets, signaled a dramatic shift in how America sees its role on the world stage—and how it plans to spend its resources at home and abroad.
Gabbard, a former Congresswoman from Hawaii and a veteran of the U.S. Army National Guard, did not mince words. “For decades, our foreign policy has been trapped in a counterproductive and endless cycle of regime change or nation building,” she said, according to the Associated Press. “It was a one-size-fits-all approach, of toppling regimes, trying to impose our system of governance on others, intervene in conflicts that were barely understood and walk away with more enemies than allies.” She went on to summarize the cost of this approach: “The results: Trillions spent, countless lives lost and in many cases, the creation of greater security threats.”
This assessment, as reported by multiple sources including AP and BETA, closely mirrors President Trump’s own thinking about America’s post-9/11 wars. Trump has long criticized the U.S. interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, which he claims brought instability abroad and exhaustion at home. During his first term, he negotiated a withdrawal from Afghanistan—though the actual exit, under President Biden in 2021, was chaotic and widely debated. Gabbard’s remarks in Bahrain reinforced the idea that the U.S. is now stepping away from the idea that democracy can be imposed through military force.
Instead, the Trump administration has pivoted to what Gabbard described as a focus on “economic prosperity and regional stability” in the Middle East. This new approach has already led to significant developments, including securing a ceasefire that ended the recent Israel-Hamas war in Gaza and forcing an end to Israel’s 12-day war against Iran after U.S. bombers targeted Iranian nuclear facilities. Gabbard acknowledged, however, that these achievements are fragile. “The road ahead will not be simple or easy but the president is very committed down this road,” she said.
According to reporting from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and additional commentary in the U.S. press, this policy shift represents more than just a change in tactics. It’s a wholesale realignment of American priorities. For much of the 21st century, U.S. foreign policy revolved around the idea that spreading democracy—often by force—would create a safer world. But after two decades of costly interventions, the results were often instability, resentment, and new security threats. The new direction, as confirmed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, is about stability, strength, and self-preservation rather than global control.
This realignment has tangible consequences at home. The U.S. is now refocusing on domestic priorities such as strengthening supply chains, restoring industry, and investing in infrastructure. The trillions of dollars once spent on foreign wars can now be redirected toward job creation, innovation, manufacturing, and education. For many Americans, especially in communities that have long felt neglected, this shift is both symbolic and practical—a chance to rebuild the nation’s foundation from within.
For Black Americans, the symbolism is particularly poignant. As noted in commentary from U.S. news outlets, the end of regime change abroad is a reminder that real progress starts at home. “This moment calls for leadership rooted in confidence, not dependency,” one analysis stated. The same discipline America is learning to apply in its foreign policy—knowing when to stop giving away its resources and when to prioritize its own house first—can also guide how marginalized communities see their place within the nation. The message: build power at home, not by seeking validation elsewhere, but by cultivating resilience and self-respect.
Gabbard’s speech did not ignore the ongoing challenges that remain. She described the ceasefire in Gaza as “fragile” and acknowledged that Iran remains a significant concern, especially given recent reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency about renewed activity at Iranian nuclear sites. “The road ahead will not be simple or easy,” she cautioned, signaling that while the era of regime change may be over, the U.S. still faces complex security dilemmas in the region.
Interestingly, Gabbard’s remarks also came at a time when the U.S. government was experiencing a shutdown, a fact she noted during her appearance at the summit. This government shutdown, though not directly related to foreign policy, underscored the domestic challenges facing America as it attempts to realign its priorities. The juxtaposition of a major foreign policy announcement and a grinding government shutdown was not lost on observers; it highlighted the need for stability and renewal both at home and abroad.
Not all aspects of Trump’s foreign policy were discussed by Gabbard. As reported by AP and other outlets, she did not mention the deployment of U.S. warships near South America, fatal strikes on suspected drug-running boats, or covert CIA operations targeting Venezuela—actions that have sparked speculation about possible regime change attempts in that region. Critics argue that, despite the rhetoric, the temptation for intervention remains alive in some corners of the administration. Nonetheless, the official line, as delivered by Gabbard, is clear: the era of regime change as a primary tool of American foreign policy is over.
The summit itself was not without controversy. An Associated Press journalist, who had been accredited to cover the event, had their visa revoked by Bahrain just days before the conference, reportedly due to a “post-approval review.” This move coincided with AP’s coverage of Bahraini activist Abdulhadi al-Khawaja’s hunger strike, which ended after he received supportive letters from the European Union and Denmark. The incident raised questions about press freedom and transparency in the region, even as American officials called for greater stability and openness.
As the dust settles from the Manama Dialogue, one thing is clear: America’s foreign policy is undergoing a profound transformation. The focus is shifting inward, toward rebuilding at home and projecting strength through stability rather than intervention. Whether this new direction will succeed—either in the Middle East or back in the United States—remains to be seen. But for now, the message from Washington is unmistakable: the age of regime change is over, and a new era of American responsibility has begun.
