The Federalists Reloaded: No. 3

The United States of Intervention: What Jay Got Right and We Got Wrong

May 06, 2025

Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their SAFETY seems to be the first.

— John Jay, Federalist No. 3

The Safety of the People: John Jay’s Dream, Our Bureaucratic Reality

When John Jay penned Federalist No. 3 in 1787, he pitched a unified federal government as sleek, powerful, and indispensable. More importantly, necessary for avoiding foreign wars.

His thesis? One big national government is safer than thirteen little ones when it comes to foreign relations.

Fast-forward 238 years, and while we’ve achieved Jay’s dream of unity, we’ve also added a bloated federal bureaucracy, an $850 billion Pentagon, and military deployments in 80+ countries. Jay feared disunion. Now, we should fear overconcentration.

Let’s walk through Federalist No. 3, Jay’s ode to centralized diplomacy, and explore what we could do better.

Jay’s Case for Unity and Uniformity

Jay’s argument is simple. Unified diplomacy leads to fewer “just causes” for war. Central government means consistent treaties, competent leadership, and a better shot at peace.

In 1787, he wasn’t wrong. States like Pennsylvania and Georgia had dabbled in their own foreign policy. Competing tariffs, rogue deals, it was a mess. But in 2025, our problem isn’t disorder. It’s dysfunction.

A unified federal foreign policy today doesn’t prevent war. It facilitates it.

The New Dangers of Centralized Foreign Policy

Jay believed that a unified America would make wise, just decisions. Sadly, that assumption hasn’t aged well.

Since 2001, the U.S. has spent $8 trillion on post-9/11 wars.1 That’s about $60,000 per taxpayer, with no formal war declarations and unclear strategic wins.

Would thirteen states, acting individually, have green-lit 20 years in Afghanistan? Doubtful. But one federal government did, with limited debate or restraint.

Jay wanted to insulate diplomacy from “sudden irritation.” We’ve replaced irritation with inertia.

One threat Jay never anticipated? A passive Congress. He assumed the legislative branch would jealously guard its constitutional authority over war, trade, and foreign policy. What we have instead is a legislature that shrinks from hard choices. Members issue statements, hold hearings, and wave flags, but when it’s time to vote on military action or treaties, they vanish.

The Founders gave Congress the power to declare war, ratify treaties, and regulate commerce because they believed those decisions demanded the consent of the people’s representatives. When Congress abdicates that role, power flows to the executive, and accountability dies in the fog of permanent emergency.

Jay feared impetuous state governments pulling the nation into conflict. But the modern danger isn’t hot-headed decentralization, it’s lazy centralization, where war becomes background noise and diplomacy is outsourced to whoever’s in the Oval Office.

When Local Control Beats Imperial Reach

Jay feared that border states would provoke conflict with Britain or Spain. Fair. But today, the bigger issue is that Washington is dragging every state into conflicts they never asked for.

Take Iraq. Launched by the federal executive, rubber-stamped by Congress, and we still have a military presence there today.

Meanwhile, states like California or Vermont, which prefer diplomatic or humanitarian approaches, had no say. They just pay the bill. If war required a majority of state legislatures to consent or to contribute directly, it might be far rarer.

Congress has taken a passive role in restricting military actions and foreign policy in the since the end of World War II and need to accept their responsibility.

Trade, Not Troops

Jay said treaties mattered. So do we. But in today’s world, peace doesn’t come from parchment. It comes from partnerships.

The U.S. exported over $3 trillion in goods and services in 2023. Every $1 billion in exports supports 5,000 jobs.2 That’s real peacekeeping. Countries that trade heavily with one another are far less likely to go to war.

But instead of expanding trade, we’ve embraced tariffs — political weapons disguised as economic policy.

The current tariff regime punishes allies, raises consumer prices, and triggers retaliatory policies that fracture global supply chains. That’s not just bad economics. It’s bad national security.

We’ve targeted Canadian steel, German auto parts, and Southeast Asian semiconductors like they’re threats to democracy. The real threat is creating unnecessary friction with the very partners we need in a global crisis. It pushes our friends closer to China, increases dependency on state-controlled producers, and weakens American leverage in multilateral negotiations.

According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, tariffs imposed during the U.S.-EU trade dispute led to a 20 percent drop in transatlantic agricultural exports and sparked a tit-for-tat escalation that took nearly three years to unwind. Not exactly the fast track to stability.

Want to build peace and power? Open ports, not tariff spreadsheets.

A smarter, freer government would double down on trade and let businesses, not bureaucrats, build the bridges.

And now a little wisdom from Milton Friedman:

Modern Solutions: The Free-Market Federalist Update

Jay imagined unity would protect us. He’s right, but we have to balance between federal unity and limited government.

Here’s how to restore balance:

Reassert Congressional War Powers

Let’s go back to the Constitution. No more wars without a vote.

📊 The last U.S. declared war? World War II. Since then, we've had over 80 military deployments with zero formal declarations.

Cut Defense Bureaucracy, Not Readiness

Audit the Pentagon. Cap indefinite aid. Focus on actual defense.

📊 GAO has failed to fully audit the Department of Defense for decades. That’s $850 billion with no receipt.

Champion Free Trade

Lower tariffs. Simplify customs. Let commerce do its job.

📊 Every $1 billion in exports = 5,000 American jobs. Global interdependence reduces conflict and isolates our enemies.

Decentralize Diplomatic Input

States on the front lines should have input on policies that affect their respeective regions whether trade or security. Not just DC insiders.

🎯 Regional councils or compacts could advise on trade, immigration, and energy corridors.

Final Thoughts: Jay Was Right About Balance

Jay didn’t preach unity as some abstract ideal. He saw it as a means to a higher end: safety, peace, and justice for a free people.

Unity, to Jay, was a guardrail. A way to prevent petty rivalries, inconsistent treaties, and impulsive acts of war by fractious states. In that sense, he was absolutely right. A well-structured national government is better equipped to pursue peace on behalf of the whole.

But unity isn’t automatically virtuous. It has to be anchored in accountability. Without limits, unity becomes centralization. And centralization without consent becomes coercion.

The Founders didn’t want perpetual disunion, but they also didn’t want unquestioned concentration. They believed in balance: between state and federal, between local wisdom and national interest, between unity and liberty.

So yes, let’s take Jay’s advice. Let’s be unified where it serves the public good, in diplomacy, treaties, and avoiding needless conflict.

But let’s also build in the checks he couldn’t foresee. Checks that protect us from inertia, secrecy, and imperial sprawl. Because unity, when disconnected from deliberation, stops being a shield. It becomes a sword.

Coming Up Next: Federalist No. 4

Jay shifts from reckless states to foreign manipulation. Unity doesn’t just prevent war — it protects us from being played by global powers.

Next up: influence, interference, and why division makes us vulnerable.

👉 Enjoyed this piece? Hit ❤️, share, and subscribe for more bold takes on the founding vision (with fewer powdered wigs).