Internationally, self-interest is the rule, I'd say, for just about everyone by to some degree, the USA is not unique in that, just the one with the biggest footprint at the moment.
As Lord Palmerston famously argued, great powers have neither permanent friends nor permanent enemies, only permanent interests.*
But especially since World War II, the United States has tended to define its foreign policy interests broadly to encompass not just military security and economic advantage, but also the advancement of democracy, adherence to universal standards of human rights, the development and support of international institutions, and, especially lately, multilateral cooperation to respond to non-political worldwide problems such as climate change.
Although the specifics and emphasis tended to change somewhat between different presidential administrations, the general approach remained fairly consistent until the Trump Administration, anomalous in this as well as so many other respects, when officials with little experience and often rather limited intelligence reverted to what might charitably be described as a Nineteenth Century view of international relations—at least to the extent that it wasn't completely incoherent.
Biden and his appointees, supported by career officials in the civilian government agencies and the military, are restoring the postwar consensus that the interests of the United States should be defined broadly, and that foreign policies should be crafted accordingly. That doesn't mean they will always get it right—no government of any country ever does—but at least the process is likely to have a rational basis once again.
———
*"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."
— Speech, House of Commons, 1848
