The post-World War II era was dominated by idealism that gave rise to a dense structure of multilateral institutions and Western-led governance frameworks.
The order has now reached a decisive historical turning point. The foreign policy paradigm established during President Donald Trump’s two administrations, characterized by unilateralism, transactional nationalism, and a recalibration of historical alliances, represents a sharp break from previous international norms. This shift, combining coercive influence and strategic media manipulation, heralds a new foreign policy phenomenon: Trumpism.
By combining claims of national sovereignty with anti-establishment rhetoric, Trumpism is systematically challenging the core assumptions that have underpinned global governance for generations.
At its core, it represents a deliberate transition from grand Western-led global leadership to a decentralized, issue-specific, and deeply transactional international order.
Transaction national strategy pillars
Trumpism’s operational strategy has replaced traditional multilateral commitments with a rigid emphasis on economic national strategy and national interests. Foreign policy efforts are clearly linked to domestic economic priorities such as reindustrialization, revitalizing the defense industrial base, energy dominance, balanced trade, and financial sector leadership.
To achieve these objectives, the Trump administration has bypassed a wide range of multilateral agreements in favor of bilateral deals and deployed aggressive tariffs, coercive trade measures, and sanctions as the primary tools of state power.
The regime’s reliance on an extensive sanctions regime and aggressive extraterritorial law enforcement has sparked intense global debate about international law, state sovereignty, and the legitimate limits of state jurisdiction.
Under the banner of “peace through strength,” Trumpism has integrated legal, economic, and security mechanisms to exert pressure on allies and adversaries alike. Law enforcement operations and national security goals have routinely been repurposed as direct instruments of foreign policy.
This transactional attitude has been directly extended to collective defense and security architecture, particularly NATO. Trumpism has brought increased scrutiny to Western defense burden-sharing agreements, highlighting serious imbalances in which the United States bears disproportionate costs and strategic risks.
System collapse and systemic paralysis
The systemic effects of Trumpism are affecting every layer of the global governance hierarchy.
In multilateral forums, the regime has displayed unprecedented ambiguity and unpredictability, frequently breaking established international agreements and withdrawing from multilateral institutions.
This unstable leadership style exposes deep weaknesses in global governance and accelerates the fragmentation of the post-Cold War liberal international order.
A notable victim of this institutional chaos is the United Nations, particularly the UN Security Council. President Trump’s policies have further expanded existing debates over the legitimacy, representativeness, and effectiveness of the Security Council.
Observers say deep-rooted geopolitical conflicts, institutional inertia, and structural hierarchies rooted in the colonial era have already paralyzed the Security Council, leaving it stuck in a pre-contemplative phase of reform rather than bringing about substantive structural change. US institutional disengagement has further exacerbated this inertia, raising fundamental questions about the long-term durability and authority of international security institutions.
While supporters argue that the Trump administration is seeking to advance needed institutional reforms through selective, high-level engagement, such as working with like-minded allies and engaging with the UN Secretary-General on shared priorities, critics see these moves as prioritizing immediate national interests over global stability.
The rise of multipolar and regionalized orders
As the United States retreats from global control, the resulting power vacuum is facilitating a major restructuring of international politics. Middle powers and regional blocs are increasingly moving forward to close the governance gap.
These actors have begun to build regional frameworks and issue-specific coalitions, positioning them as important complements or direct alternatives to traditional Western-led institutions.
This global shift has sparked intense debate among international relations scholars and policymakers about President Trump’s legacy.
Others argue that the disruption he has caused is a catalyst for reform and system resilience. Trumpism promotes a more pluralistic, inclusive, and pragmatic world order that can address contemporary geopolitical realities by giving middle powers and non-Western powers greater control over regional security and economic partnerships.
Some warn that America’s withdrawal from multilateral commitments has shattered collective security agreements and diminished the legitimacy of the system. Seen from this perspective, the weakening of Western leadership has paved the way for sustained strategic competition, regional instability, and dangerous governance vacuums across key international forums.
redefining great power
President Trump’s foreign policy cannot be dismissed as a temporary aberration or a mere shift in personal political style. It has established a clear and reproducible paradigm of international national strategy, and thus deserves the enduring label of Trumpism.
By intentionally weaponizing unpredictable diplomacy, prioritizing national prosperity over institutional continuity, and asserting absolute national sovereignty against the constraints of global governance, Trumpism is fundamentally redefining how great powers exert influence in the modern era.
Trump’s foreign policy will leave an indelible mark on the modern international system. By challenging the fundamental assumptions of the liberal international order, the balance of power will change forever and the world will enter a new era characterized by decentralized authority, increasing regionalism, and the continued search for new governance models.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
