You’ve probably heard the name Liz Cheney a lot lately, usually tied to January 6th or her public feud with Donald Trump. But before she was the face of the anti-Trump GOP, she was defined by something else: her foreign policy.
Honestly, the term "war hawk" gets thrown around so much in D.C. that it’s almost lost its meaning. In Cheney's case, it’s a label she’s carried like a badge of honor for decades, though her critics use it as a weapon. Basically, if you believe the U.S. should be the world’s undisputed police force, you probably like her. If you’re tired of "endless wars," you likely think she’s the problem.
But is she actually a war hawk, or just a traditionalist in a party that moved on without her?
✨ Don't miss: Why Are Liberals So Hateful? Understanding the Psychology of Political Affective Polarization
The Cheney Legacy: Is Liz Cheney a War Hawk by Design?
To understand Liz Cheney, you have to look at where she came from. We aren't just talking about her being the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, though that’s a massive part of it. Her worldview was forged in the heat of the Cold War and the subsequent neoconservative "unipolar moment."
She didn't just inherit these views; she helped build the infrastructure for them. Back in the early 2000s, Cheney worked in the State Department under George W. Bush. She was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. Her job? Promoting "democracy" in the Middle East.
Critics, including those at Responsible Statecraft, argue that this was just a polite way of saying "regime change." While at the State Department, she pushed for a more aggressive stance on Iran and Syria. She even headed the Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group (ISOG).
That unit was controversial because it essentially looked for ways to undermine those governments from within.
Breaking Down the Voting Record
When she got to Congress in 2017, she didn't soften. Not even a little bit.
If you look at her time representing Wyoming, her voting record is a checklist for military interventionism. She consistently voted for massive defense budgets. She didn't just want a strong military; she wanted "preeminence."
In a 2019 conversation at the Hudson Institute, she literally said:
"Our safety and our security relies upon preeminence, relies upon dominance."
That isn't exactly the language of a "restraint" advocate. She’s been a vocal critic of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. When President Obama left Iraq, she called it an "abandonment." When Trump wanted to pull out of Syria, she was one of the loudest voices in his ear telling him he was making a mistake.
The Trump Clash: Why the Label Became a Political Weapon
Things got weird in late 2024. During the campaign trail, Donald Trump ramped up the "war hawk" rhetoric against her to a whole new level.
At an event in Glendale, Arizona, with Tucker Carlson, Trump called her a "radical war hawk." He went further, suggesting she wouldn't be so quick to send troops if she had "nine barrels shooting at her." It was a classic Trump-style attack—blunt, controversial, and aimed right at the "forever war" fatigue felt by many voters.
Cheney’s response was immediate. She branded Trump a "petty, vindictive, cruel, unstable man." But the exchange highlighted a massive shift in the Republican Party.
- The Old Guard: Cheney represents the Reagan-era "Peace Through Strength" wing.
- The New Guard: Trump represents a "MAGA" isolationist (or at least non-interventionist) wing.
For Cheney, being called a hawk is just another way of saying she believes in American leadership. To her, the alternative isn't peace—it's a vacuum filled by China and Russia.
✨ Don't miss: Michael Corrado Cleveland Ohio: The Story Behind the Netflix Docuseries
What Most People Miss About the "Hawk" Label
Is it fair to call her a hawk?
Strictly speaking, yes. She supports the use of military force to advance American interests and values. She believes in the "Nuclear Triad" and has pushed for modernizing it with low-yield nuclear weapons.
But there is nuance. She isn't just looking for a fight; she’s an institutionalist. She believes in alliances like NATO. While Trump questioned the value of these partnerships, Cheney saw them as the only thing stopping a total global collapse.
In her book Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America, co-authored with her father, she argues that when America retreats, the world becomes more dangerous. It’s a specific philosophy. It’s not just "let’s go to war," but rather "if we aren't the strongest, someone worse will be."
The Price of a Hawkish Stance
Her foreign policy didn't just win her enemies in the Democratic party. It’s a big reason she lost her seat in Wyoming.
Harriet Hageman, who defeated her in the 2022 primary, leaned into the idea that Cheney was more interested in foreign conflicts than Wyoming's problems. The "war hawk" label became a symbol for being "out of touch."
Final Take: The Future of the Hawkish Right
Liz Cheney hasn't changed her mind. She still believes the U.S. should be the world’s primary power. She still thinks we should support Ukraine with everything we've got. She still views China as an existential threat that requires military readiness, not just trade deals.
If you’re trying to decide where you stand on her, ignore the campaign trail insults for a second. Instead, look at the fundamental question: Do you believe American military intervention makes the world safer?
If you answer "yes," you're in Cheney's camp. If you think America needs to mind its own business, then she is exactly the "war hawk" you’ve been warned about.
Practical Next Steps for Following This Issue:
📖 Related: Have Any Votes Been Counted Yet? The Reality of Election Night Math
Check out the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) votes for the upcoming cycle. Even though Cheney is out of office, her "wing" of the GOP is still fighting for influence. Watch how many Republicans vote for increased aid to Ukraine versus those who want to cut it. That is the clearest "hawk vs. dove" line in 2026. You can also read the Wilson Quarterly reports on "Restoring the Balance" to see how experts are trying to bridge the gap between Cheney-style interventionism and modern isolationism.