At the 21st Manama Dialogue in Bahrain on November 1, 2025, U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard delivered a message that seemed, at first blush, like a dramatic turn in American foreign policy. Addressing an audience of diplomats, military leaders, and policy experts, Gabbard declared, "The old Washington way of thinking is something we hope is in the rearview mirror and something that has held us back for too long. For decades, our foreign policy has been trapped in a counterproductive and endless cycle of regime change or nation-building. It was a one-size-fits-all approach of toppling regimes, trying to impose our system of governance on others, intervening in conflicts that were barely understood, and walking away with more enemies than allies. The results: trillions spent, countless lives lost, and in many cases, the creation of greater security threats and the rise of Islamist terrorist groups like ISIS." According to ANI and RT, Gabbard credited President Donald Trump’s "pragmatic, deal-driven" approach with steering American policy away from this failed model, suggesting a clean break from the interventionist strategies that have defined U.S. actions for decades.
Yet, as Gabbard painted a picture of a new era—one supposedly focused on diplomacy, mutual deals, and restraint—events on the ground and critics both inside and outside the U.S. government told a more complicated story. The Trump administration’s recent actions in Venezuela and Iran have drawn fresh accusations that, despite the rhetoric, the old playbook of pressure, intervention, and even regime change is alive and well.
Since early 2025, President Trump has repeatedly presented himself as a global peacemaker, touting his administration’s efforts to broker international deals. Gabbard echoed this sentiment in Bahrain, stating, "President Trump was elected by the American people to put an end to this. And from day one, he has shown a very different way to conduct foreign policy—one that is pragmatic, deal-driven, and realistic, focused on protecting American security and prosperity while engaging with the world on terms that actually make sense." She highlighted the administration’s role in negotiating the release of all living hostages from Hamas and described the ongoing Gaza ceasefire as "fragile yet historic."
But as RT and Bloomberg reported, critics both at home and abroad see a stark contrast between the administration’s words and its deeds. In June 2025, U.S. airstrikes targeted Iranian nuclear sites, drawing condemnation from Tehran and fueling claims that Washington’s efforts to undermine Iran’s government remain unchanged. President Trump himself, following those strikes, posted on social media, "Why wouldn’t there be a Regime change???"—a remark that left little doubt about his intentions in the eyes of Iranian officials.
Meanwhile, Venezuela has emerged as a flashpoint for the contradictions in U.S. policy. In October, President Nicolás Maduro accused the U.S. of plotting a coup against his government, cloaked in the ongoing anti-drug campaign off Venezuela’s coast. As RT detailed, these accusations came amid reports that the U.S. had even attempted to recruit Maduro’s own pilot for a kidnap plot. The Trump administration’s military buildup in the Caribbean, which officials claim is aimed at counter-narcotics operations, has only heightened suspicions in Caracas and across Latin America.
According to Bloomberg, Trump’s escalation against Venezuela has exposed deep divisions among the region’s governments. While Maduro has called for Latin American solidarity in the face of U.S. intervention, his appeals have largely fallen on deaf ears. A recent poll reported by Bloomberg revealed a striking finding: a significant number of people in the region actually see U.S. military intervention as the best hope for restoring democracy in Venezuela. The report underscores the fragmentation and uncertainty among neighboring countries, many of which are wary of both Maduro’s authoritarianism and Washington’s heavy-handed tactics.
On the domestic front, the Trump administration’s priorities have come under fire from critics who point to a stark juxtaposition: as the U.S. government shutdown stretched past 30 days and millions of Americans faced the loss of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, the administration poured millions of dollars daily into military operations near Venezuela. According to Peoples Dispatch, approximately 42 million Americans stood to lose SNAP benefits beginning November 1, 2025, as the administration refused to tap into contingency funds. At the same time, the U.S. Navy’s deployment in the Caribbean—including the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group, the USS Jason Dunham destroyer, and the amphibious assault ship Iwo Jima—was costing taxpayers at least $18 million per day, with the total price tag since late August surpassing $600 million.
The military escalation has not been without human cost. Peoples Dispatch reported that at least 60 people have been killed in at least fourteen extrajudicial strikes in the Caribbean and Pacific since early September 2025, with victims hailing from Venezuela, Colombia, and Trinidad and Tobago. The administration has labeled the dead as "narcoterrorists," though family members in several cases have insisted they were merely fishermen. The United Nations has called on Washington to "immediately cease airstrikes on maritime targets" and to prevent what it described as "extrajudicial killing of civilians."
The strategic motivations behind the U.S. posture are as old as American foreign policy itself. As Peoples Dispatch explained, the Trump administration’s actions are driven in part by Venezuela’s vast oil reserves—the largest proven in the world—and a desire to reassert U.S. dominance in Latin America under the Monroe Doctrine. The administration views Maduro’s socialist government and its alliances with Russia and China as ideological threats that must be countered, whether by economic pressure, covert action, or, increasingly, overt military force. The deployment of the Gerald Ford Carrier Group and explicit threats of strikes on Venezuelan soil represent a significant escalation, moving beyond sanctions and rhetoric to the brink of direct intervention.
Gabbard’s remarks in Bahrain, then, reflect a tension at the heart of current U.S. foreign policy: the desire to present a new, less interventionist face to the world, while still relying on military might and covert operations to achieve strategic goals. As she acknowledged, "He [Trump] negotiated the release of all living hostages from Hamas, while a fragile yet historic ceasefire and peace plan is moving forward." Yet, as recent events in Venezuela and Iran demonstrate, the cycle of intervention, pressure, and regime change—whether overt or covert—remains difficult to escape.
Back home, the optics of spending hundreds of millions on foreign military deployments while millions of Americans go hungry have not gone unnoticed. The administration’s willingness to fund military operations abroad, even as it claims it cannot afford domestic food assistance, has drawn sharp criticism from advocacy groups and opposition politicians alike. As the government shutdown drags on, the question of priorities—security abroad or well-being at home—has become more pressing than ever.
In the end, the story of America’s foreign policy in 2025 is one of contradiction and complexity. While officials like Gabbard proclaim the end of the era of regime change, the realities on the ground—in the Caribbean, in the Middle East, and even in American kitchens—tell a more complicated tale. Whether the U.S. can truly leave its old ways behind, or whether the cycle of intervention will continue under new guises, remains a question that will shape global politics for years to come.
