As President Trump governs from a mélange of conservative principles, many are wondering whether classical liberalism can find a home alongside the New Right.

International relations scholar Francis Fukuyama believes that President Trump’s November win drove classical liberalism into decline. Others suggest that Trump now leads the only major party that champions constitutional liberties.

With a second-term agenda in effect, Trump wields conservatism as a means to execute classically liberal tenets – and he is doing well thus far.

Trump’s domestic policies are a seismic shift towards the individual, giving them more autonomy and association in their daily lives. When applied internationally, that may isolate classical liberals who prefer global integration.

On this topic, legal scholar John O. McGinnis wrote that “[p]olitical movements cannot stand still; they must adjust to new circumstances while remaining rooted in enduring principles.” Indeed, Trump’s synthesis of classical liberalism and conservatism is complementary and a dynamic blend that mostly enhances Americans’ quality of life.

In “On Liberty,” philosopher John Stuart Mill conceived the “harm principle,” in which “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” This set clear boundaries on government intervention and gave citizens flexibility in their social and economic behavior. However, this is not a utilitarian solution; it respects the separateness of people and gives them room to create, innovate, and thrive.

President Trump understands the harm principle and has aptly applied it to today’s national challenges.

Responding to previous federal free speech crackdowns, Trump curbed government interference in constitutionally protected speech, ending federal censorship. The President also delayed the social media platform TikTok from a domestic ban, letting more Americans consume news, engage with virtual communities, and produce various content. The president even launched a massive deregulation campaign with the Office of Management and Budget to delete 10 existing regulations for every new one imposed.

With regulatory reform and free speech, Trump brought choice back to the people, imbuing Americans with renewed responsibility for self-governance. These actions uphold negative liberty – the freedom from external constraints – to create a more favorable environment for ingenuity and expression.

If American conservatism means upholding a classically liberal order, then Trump’s emphasis on negative liberty preserves institutional integrity. Limiting government bias, as Mill would suggest, caps the harm it can do. McGinnis would agree: “The political New Right…sees structural reform as the key to restraining a bureaucracy that increasingly leans ideologically left.”

Trump’s policies are offensive to challenge what he sees as a politically unprincipled domestic sphere. He holds the international order to that same standard.

So far, Trump has withdrawn America from the Paris Climate Accord, the United Nations Human Rights Council, and the World Health Organization. Amid a public diplomatic scuffle with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the U.S. paused intelligence sharing with Ukraine. Trump also halted aid to South Africa and looks to dismantle USAID. Trump sees all these actions as negative liberties conducive to homeland prosperity: less outside noise and more focus on internal affairs.

However, the world order’s emphasis on rules-based systems aligns with the values of predictability and protection of individual rights. It’s why there are massive pushbacks against Trump’s tariff policies and his rhetoric on Canada – critics, including some classical liberals, worry it will undermine cooperation, weaken global stability and free trade, and increase isolationism.

A more unilateralist, nationalist, and realist approach to foreign policy rejects the liberal emphasis on multilateral diplomacy and international law. But can you be both a nationalist and a classical liberal?

In “A Treatise of Human Nature,” Scottish philosopher David Hume argued that one’s country is the largest social group that can receive their citizens’ pride and shame. For Hume, humans have more sympathy for people to whom they are close than with foreigners.

Even Ludwig von Mises, one of classical liberalism’s most revered thinkers, slammed multinational institutions in “Human Action”: “What is needed to make peace durable is neither international treaties and covenants nor international tribunals and organizations like the defunct League of Nations or its successor, the United Nations. If the principle of the market economy is universally accepted, such makeshifts are unnecessary.”

With international relations, the classical liberal debate goes both ways – and Trump is selectively deciding which pieces to put into play.

America can be improved with a balanced ideological approach: Prioritize free trade, support national self-determination, and understand that some transnational problems require multilateral solutions. The U.S. needs allies and strength at home, so it must uphold the rule of law in both arenas. Balancing domestic freedom with greater public safety is delicate and should not require compromise. Trump is proving the two can coexist.