President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Junker and European Council President Donald Tusk at European Union headquarters on May 25 in Brussels. From left are National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Trump and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis. AP

Over the past few weeks, President Donald Trump has revealed a foreign policy doctrine that is transactional, militaristic and actively focused on upending long-standing alliances and values-based coalitions.

From his budget proposal that guts America’s diplomatic resources to his conduct on his first international trip – where he showered the repressive Saudi regime with praise while refusing to affirm Article 5 of the NATO alliance (which stipulates that an attack on any NATO member will be treated as an attack on all NATO members, and which was invoked for the first time following 9/11, on America’s behalf) – it is clear the president believes the sole purpose of foreign policy is to disrupt a global order he thinks has taken advantage of America.

The Trump Doctrine – misleadingly labeled “America First” – is already damaging our relations with our closest allies and will, in the short and long term, undermine our own safety and security.

Understanding the true nature of the Trump Doctrine requires challenging the narrative being put forth by the president’s advisers.

In a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, the president’s national security adviser, and Gary Cohn, director of the National Economic Council, attempted to put a positive spin on the Trump Doctrine by depicting it as an aggressive version of a classic realist approach to international relations. They argued “the world is not a ‘global community’ but an arena where nations, nongovernmental actors and businesses engage and compete for advantage. We bring to this forum unmatched military, political, economic, cultural and moral strength. Rather than deny this elemental nature of international affairs, we embrace it.”

Arguing the world is a tough place and we should use all of America’s power to advance American interests is a well-established, if somewhat extreme perspective – this approach places little value on the security and economic benefits realized through rules-based institutions such as NATO – in American foreign policy. However, we must view these words in the context of President Trump’s actions, and with such a lens we see the Trump Doctrine for the militaristic, chaos approach that it is.

Consider the president’s budget, which would cut funding for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development by around 30 percent and zero out economic and development assistance to over 30 countries.

America is already over-reliant on the military for the conduct of foreign policy and such a cut would exacerbate this tension and render American soft power essentially non-existent. It’s worth remembering that in 2013, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, then serving as the commander of Central Command, testified to Congress that “if you don’t fully fund the State Department, then I need to buy more ammunition.” Even where diplomacy or foreign aid might better advance America’s security, the Trump Doctrine chooses bullets.

Then we have the president’s treatment of foreign leaders. Contrast the president’s open embrace of authoritarian regimes in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia and the Philippines with his continuous harassment of our European allies. The latter manifested most recently when, in the immediate aftermath of a brutal ISIS attack on the city of London, the president took to Twitter to attack the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, as being insufficiently tough.

How else can we interpret this other than to acknowledge that under the Trump Doctrine, the need to look tough takes priority over moral power and human decency?

Finally, we have the president’s announcement that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, wherein he presented the agreement as an attempt by other countries to take advantage of America. Whatever one may think of the relative merits of the actual agreement, this grievance framing is a consistent tenor in the president’s public remarks and reveals a deep suspicion that even our closest allies are out to get us. As a result, the Trump Doctrine asserts American primacy by disrupting international institutions even when the American people benefit from participation in those arrangements.

In isolation, any one of the above examples would be troublesome, but collectively they depict a foreign policy doctrine that actively promotes chaos and disorder so long as America can appear tough. Such an approach has no basis in American values and in order to prevent further harm, leaders across the political spectrum must publicly reject the Trump Doctrine.

But we cannot stop at simply rejecting the Trump Doctrine. As disturbing and harmful as the Trump Doctrine may be to our values and security, we have to acknowledge that it exists, in large measure, because of deep dissatisfaction with existing international norms and the absence of a unifying narrative for America’s foreign policy.

As was made clear through the 2016 presidential campaign, there are millions of Americans who feel they have been left out or materially hurt by America’s foreign policy, in particular our approach to global trade and commerce. The economic losses suffered by many communities across America – often concentrated in specific geographies – as a result of international trade deals are well-documented and have to be taken into consideration as we assess our foreign affairs. Compounding this sense of economic dislocation is America’s struggle, since the end of the Cold War, to unite behind a new foreign policy doctrine.

The lack of a coherent policy created a vacuum the Trump Doctrine is now attempting to fill.

So we need to do more than just criticize and condemn the Trump Doctrine – we need to articulate the alternative. Leaders across the political spectrum have failed at this for far too long. Congress, in particular, has completely abandoned its constitutional duties with respect to foreign policy. Rather than risk taking blame for asserting any controversial positions or exercising legitimate oversight, Congress has instead handed the reins entirely to the executive branch and attempted to run away from any meaningful debate on the use of American power.

Our country cannot afford to avoid this debate any longer.

This is a conversation that every American can and should engage in as we are all affected by how our country acts on the international stage. We need to be asking ourselves what does a foreign policy look like that is based in deeply held American values (for example, equality, opportunity and individual liberty), articulates clear principles for the use of military, diplomatic, and economic power to address the myriad of complex security challenges (for example, non-state terror networks, rising powers such as China and authoritarian regimes such as Russia), and provides a compelling vision for a values-based international order around which to rally our allies and potential allies.

In the absence of a compelling alternative framework for American foreign policy, the Trump Doctrine will remain the animating feature of our foreign affairs, undermining our safety and fueling militarism around the world.

(Dan Vallone of Concord is a West Point graduate who served six years on active duty as an infantry officer.)