America First CommitteeEdit
The America First Committee was a major American political movement that formed in 1940 with the aim of keeping the United States out of the growing conflict in Europe. It presented itself as a defender of national sovereignty, constitutional restraint, and the ordinary citizen’s economic interests, arguing that the best way to preserve American prosperity and security was to avoid entangling alliances and foreign commitments that could pull the country into war. The movement grew rapidly, drawing support from a broad cross-section of society, and became the most visible expression of a broad, non-interventionist impulse in the United States before the attack on Pearl Harbor. The most recognizable public figure associated with the campaign was aviator Charles Lindbergh, whose leadership and platform shaped the public face of the effort and helped mobilize millions around the slogan of putting the country first.
From the outset, the AFC framed its mission around cautious, sovereignty-centered foreign policy. Proponents argued that American resources, families, and communities deserved priority in political decision-making, and that American security depended on preserving the country’s capacity to defend itself rather than becoming involved in distant and costly European quarrels. The committee advocated for policies that would reduce the risk of entangling the United States in a continental war while maintaining a robust national defense. In this light, the AFC pressed for a pause on measures designed to assist one side in the conflict or to restructure the international order in ways that could obligate the United States to sacrifice its own economic well-being or constitutional liberties. The position stood in opposition to rapid deepening of military obligations and international arrangements that some viewed as eroding traditional American sovereignty. The movement’s rhetoric and arguments frequently centered on the idea that the United States should resolve its own problems at home before trying to shape events abroad, and it used mass rallies, radio appearances, and organized petition drives to reach a wide audience.
The rise of the AFC occurred within a broader debate about how the United States should respond to the unfolding war and shifting global alliances. Supporters presented a vision of prudent restraint—emphasizing balanced budgets, economic nationalism, and a wary approach to international commitments. They also argued that the U.S. should act in ways that protected workers and domestic industries, including a focus on free trade for American prosperity and opposition to rapid escalation of foreign aid that they believed could drag the country into a war with uncertain benefits. In practice, this translated into opposition to certain policy steps that were seen as moving toward direct involvement in the conflict, even as other voices within the broader isolationist and restraint movement argued for varying degrees of disengagement or a more reformulated alliance system. The campaign transformed the domestic debate over foreign policy and left a lasting imprint on how Americans discussed sovereignty, national interests, and public restraint in the face of global pressure.
The AFC is a case study in how a large, populist movement can generate both broad support and intense controversy. On one side, its supporters described the organization as a principled defense of republican government and a pragmatic response to the dangers of overextension. They contended that keeping the nation out of a distant war would protect not only lives but also the long-run economic independence that allowed private enterprise to flourish and households to prosper. They also argued that strong, sensible leadership at home—rather than rapid military commitments abroad—was the surest way to sustain a prosperous republic. On the other side, critics charged that some leaders within the movement flirted with or implicitly endorsed attitudes that blended resentment toward internationalist policy with sympathy toward totalitarian regimes, and that certain rhetoric undercut the moral case against tyranny. The most public wound to the AFC’s reputation came from comments and associations that many believed reflected anti-Semitic or pro-authoritarian sentiment, with opponents noting that such views were incompatible with the obligations of a pluralistic republic. In response, supporters maintained that the core aim was sober prudence in foreign policy and that the charges of broader ideological alignment overstated the case, pointing to the group’s emphasis on constitutional limits and American prosperity as its defining concerns. The organization dissolved in the wake of the December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, but its legacy continued to influence how Americans thought about national sovereignty, intervention, and economic priorities in the years that followed. For readers seeking to understand the arc of this debate, the movement is often studied in relation to World War II and the broader history of isolationism and non-interventionism in the United States.
Key figures and episodes associated with the movement remain topics of discussion for historians and political analysts. The leadership of Charles Lindbergh popularized the message and helped shape public perception of what it meant to put American interests first. The debate around the AFC also fed into ongoing discourses about neutrality and how a great power balances domestic priorities with international responsibilities. Students of this period often examine how the AFC’s rhetoric intersected with concerns about immigration, industrial policy, and military preparedness, as well as how its critics framed the organization within the larger fight over whether the United States should act as a global leader or a careful, insular guardian of national sovereignty. The question of how to reconcile national interest with moral leadership in a turbulent era remains a point of reference for subsequent discussions of American foreign policy and presidential decision-making.