For decades, Cato was one of the few institutions willing to challenge Washington’s foreign policy orthodoxy. Cato scholars argued that US foreign policy was costly, destroyed civil liberties, concentrated power in the executive branch, and didn’t work. While the establishment dismissed our calls for restraint, we stuck to our principles—making the case that endless wars and global entanglements don’t serve America’s interests. Now, the tide has turned.

A September 2024 Cato Institute survey of 1,500 Americans—with questions authored by Cato foreign policy scholars and conducted by Vice President and Director of Polling Emily Ekins and YouGov in the crucial swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin— confirmed what we’ve long argued: Americans are fed up with the status quo.

The results were striking. Most respondents believe the United States is “too involved” in global conflicts. Majorities feel that our foreign policy fails to put American interests first. And in a sobering signal of public sentiment, many think we are on the brink of World War III.

Cato has been a leading voice in advancing a foreign policy grounded in realism, one that prioritizes diplomatic engagement, economic exchange, and military restraint. By challenging the prevailing interventionist mindset, we’ve helped catalyze a broader movement that questions the wisdom of open-ended security commitments and costly foreign entanglements. Today, more Americans and policymakers alike are embracing the idea that America’s greatest contribution to global peace is leading by example through limited government, respect for sovereignty, and an appreciation of the limits of military power.

This shift didn’t happen overnight. It’s the result of years of Cato scholars’ challenging reckless interventionism, shaping the intellectual battlefield, and refusing to back down. Today, restraint is no longer a fringe idea— it’s a serious policy position with growing public and political support. Cato helped make that happen.

Cato scholars are no longer fighting to be heard. We are leading the conversation. And policymakers are finally listening.

For several decades, Cato’s foreign policy scholars have argued that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a raw deal for American taxpayers. Today, this reality has finally entered polite political discussion at the highest levels. While NATO hosted its 75th birthday celebration down the street from Cato headquarters, Rep. Warren Davidson (R‑OH) delivered a keynote address at Cato’s July 9 event, “NATO at 75: Rebalancing the Transatlantic Alliance.” Cato’s event high-lighted the disproportionate expenditure the United States contributes to defending European NATO members. Marc Trachtenberg, professor emeritus at UCLA, also spoke at the conference and later published a Cato policy analysis, “Is There Life after NATO?”—a question he answers with a resounding yes.

Last year, Cato’s defense and foreign policy team published at least eight times in the country’s top foreign policy publications. That includes an article by Director of Foreign Policy Studies Justin Logan and nonresident senior fellow Joshua Shifrinson in Foreign Affairs arguing that the US policy should aim at removing US troops from Europe, shifting the burden of European defense back to Europeans.

The Defense and Foreign Policy department’s seventh annual Junior Scholar Symposium brought together graduate scholars to present their international relations articles for feedback at Cato. The program now has 78 alumni across 39 universities. This cohort had great things to say about their experience, with at least two participants telling Cato that the quality of feedback that they received was better than the feedback they received at two flagship academic conferences in international relations.