Bert Mizusawa

One of the principal critiques of Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy and national defense is that it lacks coherence. But in fact, Trump has a vision that is both coherent and overdue. The overarching goal is to provide American citizens with the best return on the tax dollars they pay into the U.S. Treasury, which should be used by our federal government to carry out its constitutional obligations.

This approach is both a fiduciary duty of our chief executive and in our national interest. It is also conceptually simple and morally right, and justly serves as the foundation of the Trump realpolitik.

Ensuring a positive return on taxpayer dollars is more than just an obligation of government; it is the quintessential purpose of government, whether those dollars are spent in the areas of security, prosperity, justice or general welfare. Why else have our social compact, where taxpayers are essentially investors in our government and way of life? It doesn’t matter whether these dollars are spent on international or domestic programs. Trump’s focus on a fair, positive return for U.S. citizens transcends the increasingly fuzzy divide of domestic, foreign and multilateral policies. So his approach is not just a coherent foreign policy approach, it is a coherent overall policy approach.

It is misguided to describe Trump’s foreign policy on a continuum between isolationism, which is unrealistic, and interventionism, which has been mismanaged into a deplorable waste of American blood and money. Instead, his approach would consider each foreign engagement or “entanglement” on its merits: the costs vs. the expected benefits, with the option to disengage if it becomes apparent that actual benefits do not justify the costs. While a decision to not engage might be characterized as isolationist and a decision to engage as interventionist, these characterizations miss the point. Trump’s approach is better characterized as favoring smart money over stupid money. And smart money always has a way out of bad deals.

We're at war, but let's talk about sex: Glenn Reynolds

While some might narrowly view Trump’s approach as unilateral, his own statements belie that. He has stated repeatedly he is looking for “fairness.” But he will not tolerate others taking undue advantage of overly generous (or poorly negotiated) international agreements. Although American generosity is one of our defining attributes, and one of which all Americans should be rightfully proud, we must not allow our generosity to be treated as naivete or free global goods at the expense of American pre-eminence. American pre-eminence, after all, has been the greatest global good for all.

Our most important international agreements take the form of treaties and executive agreements. While the most consequential deal with security and trade, they are all essentially contracts between or among nations, with diplomats rather than businessmen doing the negotiating. Businessmen can learn about security and trade issues, just like diplomats must. But diplomats are much less experienced with, and interested in, what businessmen and private investors demand in the form of return on investment because the taxpayer-funded Treasury is essentially free money to these public sector decision-makers. The costs of such diplomatic outcomes, which result in long-term commitments, are enduring. And they continue to endure regardless of the actual benefits to the American people. It is not only common sense to review de novo each international commitment in terms of its intended purpose, it is also a fiduciary obligation of the highest order. Trump drives this point home when he says everything will be on the table. And everything should be. No one but the U.S. taxpayer will bail America out, after all. This reality drives the Trump realpolitik.

Reasonable doubt in Russian hack: Column

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

Although the output side of U.S. government functions are not measured in dollar revenue, the costs are measured in taxpayer dollars, and there has been little effort to control costs in achieving our desired international objectives. Indeed, many governmental services would be deemed malpractice if they occurred in the private professions. It’s due time to introduce fiduciary standards to government that are similar to what our government requires of private business. Why hold the private sector, where citizens may invest among many alternatives, to a higher standard than our government, which has a monopoly on the vital functions of common defense and general welfare?

In sum, the essential promise of the Trump doctrine is to set a higher standard of care for our nation and its citizens by treating taxpayer dollars like our own money. After all, we are ultimately spending America’s future.

Retired Army major general Bert Mizusawa is a foreign policy and national security adviser to Donald Trump. He is a graduate of West Point and Harvard Law School, and was a MacArthur Fellow in International Security at the Harvard Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @USATOpinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To submit a letter, comment or column, check our submission guidelines.