On February 12, 2009, Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX) delivered one of his most striking speeches on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. Since referred to as the “What If…” speech, Paul’s remarks offer a precise distillation of the libertarian critique of U.S. foreign policy. At a time when military interventionism was still very much in vogue among Republican voters, Paul was willing to call a spade a spade and dismantle the faulty logic driving America’s misguided overseas adventures.

Paul’s oratory is persuasive because he posits a series of hypotheticals that aren’t really hypotheticals. The scenarios Paul describes underscore the political, intellectual, and moral bankruptcy of the American ruling class. Case in point, Paul begins his speech by posing the following questions:

“What if it’s true that the Federal Reserve is the primary cause of the boom-bust cycle and the massive inflation we now face?

What if the government’s attempt to solve the financial crisis is only making matters worse?

What if foreign interventionism is a primary cause of the hatred directed at America?

What if the War on Terror is a war that can never be won, a war that only perpetuates more terror and instability?

What if the real threat to our liberties comes not from foreign enemies, but from our own government?”

According to Paul, the call is calling from inside the house. The Federal Reserve, with its ability to print money at will, devalues the American dollar while financing the warfare state and enabling its ability to fund deadly conflicts abroad. At the same time, the Fed diminishes the purchasing power of the American consumer. This inevitably leads to voter demands that government officials step in and solve the very crises their policies led to. But financial stimulus—and the concomitant printing of more money—further erodes the value of the U.S. dollar. He elaborates on this point:

“What if the income tax and the welfare state are the true enemies of economic freedom?

What if the government’s attempts to control the economy through bailouts, subsidies, and regulations are only worsening the problems they are supposed to solve?

What if the solution to our financial problems is not more government, but less government?

What if we simply had a monetary system that allowed for sound money, where people were free to make their own economic decisions without the interference of a central bank?

What if the United States could return to a policy of peace and non-intervention, honoring the principles of the Constitution and avoiding foreign entanglements?

What if we could rein in government spending, reduce the national debt, and let the free market work without unnecessary regulation?”

Meanwhile, U.S. foreign policy leads to blowback, and the federal government uses terrorist reprisals on American soil as a pretext for abridging the freedoms of its citizens, all in the name of national security. Paul correctly identifies the state as the primary threat to Americans’ civil and economic liberties.

“War is the health of the state,” noted writer Randolph Bourne more than a century ago. Paul expands upon Bourne’s diagnosis by noting how the warfare state marshals its considerable political and economic resources to finance and build public support for the Global War on Terror. The Federal Reserve serves as a monetary backstop for the criminal foreign policy the U.S. government pursues. The ability to create money out of thin air, coupled with the multitude of mechanisms through which the federal government “generates” taxpayer revenue, only intensifies Congress’ nonchalant attitude towards foreign military adventurism. As a result, the state is able to arrogate even more power, inflaming the very problems its policy prescriptions caused and fueling public demands for additional state intervention. Paul argues that the solution is to limit the government’s influence over economic affairs. Only by subjecting to state to fiscal and monetary guardrails can the Federal Reserve’s ability to enable destructive foreign wars be curtailed.

Paul concludes his remarks with the following:

“What if the bailout culture, which rewards failure and punishes success, is destroying the work ethic that made America great?

What if our government could be trusted to defend the Constitution, protect our freedoms, and refrain from unnecessary interference in our lives?

Mr. Speaker, these are not idle questions, nor are they unrealistic. They reflect the principles that made America great, and they reflect the belief that free individuals, in a free society, can solve their problems better than a government can.

Let us ask these questions, and let us work together to create a government that is truly accountable to the people and committed to preserving liberty.”

Six years before Donald Trump vowed to make America great again, Ron Paul argued that the only way to accomplish that objective was to reform U.S. foreign policy, eliminate the Federal Reserve, cut spending, and restore the civil liberties abrogated by the warfare state. In 2025, those in power continue to ignore his advice. Despite his populist branding, Trump remains committed to the elite consensus that undergirds America’s fiscal, monetary, and foreign policy.

Case in point, Trump is more interested in remaking the Fed than he is in auditing it. In his view, Chairman Jerome Powell should simply ignore the long-term implications of the policies he enacts and slash interest rates. The fact that reducing interest rates will undoubtedly worsen inflation is irrelevant. So long as the short-term political gains materialize, who cares about the long-term forecast?

Similarly, Trump’s subservience to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s lobby in the United States typifies his commitment to the failed foreign policy of his predecessors. That the U.S. continues to ship billions in arms and financial assistance to the genocidal regime in Tel Aviv, despite mounting public opposition to Israel’s military actions in the Gaza Strip, is characteristic of Trump’s disregard for American interests.

We are now sixteen years removed from Paul’s “What If…” speech, but the themes his address dealt with are just as relevant—and intractable—today. Fortunately, Paul’s concerns are more mainstream in 2025 than they were in 2009. Unfortunately, many of his concerns have found expression in a political movement that’s fallen under the spell of a first-class charlatan. That Trump gives voice to populist frustrations does not change the fact that, in the nearly five years during which he’s held power, he’s failed to reform the institutions that drive American decline. Instead, he’s advanced a vulgar, bastardized version of America First, one which eschews non-interventionism in favor of a more populist-tinted brand of militarism.

What if the worst is yet to come?