Former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard poses for an official-style portrait in front of the American flag, wearing a white suit and smiling.
In a political era where “foreign policy” usually means recycled talking points about “strength” and “alliances,” Tulsi Gabbard’s positions actually cut against the grain. Whether you call her a realist, a non-interventionist, or just stubbornly independent, she’s built her political identity around one central theme: America shouldn’t go to war unless it absolutely has to.
It’s a stance that earns her admiration from some quarters — and accusations of being “soft” from others. In 2028, that dynamic could be the most defining part of her campaign.
The Foreign Policy Populist
Gabbard’s opposition to regime-change wars isn’t new. She’s been consistent on it since her early days in Congress, where she openly criticized U.S. interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria.
Her argument is simple: toppling governments in the name of democracy usually leaves power vacuums, breeds chaos, and costs American lives and treasure with no clear benefit to U.S. citizens. In her view, both parties have been guilty of chasing “forever wars” without an honest debate about the price.
The Military Credibility Factor
This isn’t just theory for her — she’s an Army veteran who served in a medical unit in Iraq and Kuwait. That gives her criticism of interventionism more weight than it would from a career politician who’s never worn a uniform.
For voters, that experience reads as authenticity. For her opponents, it makes attacking her stance trickier. You can’t just call a combat veteran “anti-military” and expect it to stick.
Where She Breaks with the Hawks
Even among Republicans who agree with her on domestic issues, her foreign policy views can be a deal-breaker. She’s been openly skeptical of NATO’s open-ended commitments, critical of sending blank checks to Ukraine, and unwilling to frame every foreign dispute in good-versus-evil terms.
To the hawkish wing of both parties, that sounds dangerously close to isolationism. To her supporters, it’s called realism.
The 2028 Calculus
By 2028, voters may be even more fatigued with overseas entanglements than they were during the peak of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The U.S. has other strategic concerns — from a rising China to cybersecurity threats — that can’t be solved with conventional boots-on-the-ground occupations.
Gabbard’s challenge will be to convince skeptical voters that her approach isn’t retreat, it’s prioritization. That’s a fine line to walk, especially when the media can frame her every statement through the lens of “weakness” or “appeasement.”
The Foreign Policy Double-Edged Sword
Foreign policy could be her greatest differentiator — and her biggest vulnerability. It gives her a unique selling point in a crowded field of copy-paste candidates. But it also provides an easy narrative for her opponents: that she’s not willing to “stand up to America’s enemies.”
How she handles that messaging war may decide whether she’s remembered as a thought leader on U.S. foreign engagement — or just another outsider who couldn’t get past the gatekeepers.
Related Reading:
