The post-World War II era was dominated by idealism that gave birth to a dense architecture of multilateral institutions and Western-led governance frameworks.
That order has now reached a decisive historical inflection point. The foreign policy paradigm forged during the two administrations of United States President Donald Trump — marked by unilateralism, transactional nationalism, and a recalibration of historic alliances — represents a sharp break from prior international norms. Combining coercive leverage with strategic media manipulation, this shift has heralded a new foreign policy phenomenon: Trumpism.
By combining assertions of national sovereignty with an anti-establishment tone, Trumpism systematically challenges the core assumptions that had underpinned global governance for generations.
At its core, it represents a deliberate move away from grand, Western-dominated global leadership towards a decentralised, issue-specific, and deeply transactional international order.
The pillars of transactional statecraft
Trumpism’s operational strategy has replaced traditional multilateral commitments with a hardheaded focus on economic statecraft and national interest. Foreign policy engagements have been explicitly tethered to domestic economic priorities: reindustrialisation, a revitalised defence industrial base, energy dominance, balanced trade, and leadership in the financial sector.
To achieve these aims, the Trump administration has eschewed expansive multinational agreements in favour of bilateral bargains, deploying aggressive tariffs, coercive trade measures, and sanctions as primary instruments of state power.
The administration’s reliance on expansive sanctions regimes and aggressive extraterritorial enforcement has ignited fierce global debates regarding international law, state sovereignty, and the legitimate limits of national jurisdiction.
Under the banner of “peace through strength”, Trumpism has integrated legal, economic, and security mechanisms to pressure allies and adversaries alike. Law enforcement operations and national security objectives have been routinely repurposed as direct tools of foreign policy.
This transactional posture has extended directly into collective defence and security architectures, most notably NATO. Trumpism has brought intense scrutiny to Western defence burden-sharing arrangements, highlighting severe imbalances where the US had borne a disproportionate share of costs and strategic risks.
Institutional disruption and systemic paralysis
The systemic consequences of Trumpism have reverberated across every layer of the global governance hierarchy.
In multilateral forums, the administration has displayed unprecedented ambivalence and unpredictability, frequently reneging on established international agreements and disengaging from multilateral institutions.
This volatile leadership style has exposed deep vulnerabilities within global governance, accelerating the fragmentation of the post-Cold War liberal international order.
A prominent casualty of this institutional disruption has been the United Nations, particularly the UN Security Council. Trump’s policies have magnified existing debates over the UNSC’s legitimacy, representation, and effectiveness.
Observers have noted that entrenched geopolitical rivalries, institutional inertia, and structural hierarchies rooted in the colonial era had already left the UNSC paralysed—trapped in a pre-contemplation stage of reform rather than delivering substantive structural changes. US institutional disengagement has further compounded this inertia, raising fundamental questions about the long-term durability and authority of international security bodies.
While proponents have argued that the Trump administration is seeking to drive necessary institutional reform through selective, high-level engagement—such as collaborating with like-minded allies and engaging the UN secretary-general on shared priorities—critics have viewed these moves as prioritising immediate national interests over global stability.
The rise of a multipolar and regionalised order
As the US is stepping back from global stewardship, the resulting power vacuum is catalysing a profound restructuring of international politics. Middle powers and regional blocs are increasingly stepping forward to bridge governance gaps.
These actors have begun constructing regional frameworks and issue-specific coalitions, casting them as vital supplements — or direct alternatives — to traditional Western-dominated institutions.
This global pivot has ignited a fierce debate among international relations scholars and policymakers regarding Trump’s legacy.
On the one hand, some argue that the disruptions he has caused are a catalyst for reform and systemic resilience. By forcing middle powers and non-Western nations to take greater ownership of regional security and economic coordination, Trumpism is fostering a more plural, inclusive, and realistic global order capable of addressing modern geopolitical realities.
Others are warning that US disengagement from multilateral commitments has shattered collective security arrangements and degraded institutional legitimacy. From this viewpoint, weakened Western leadership has paved the way for sustained strategic competition, regional instability, and dangerous governance voids across critical international forums.
Redefining great power
The foreign policy of the Trump presidency cannot be dismissed as a temporary aberration or a simple shift in personal political style; it warrants the enduring label Trumpism because it has established a distinct, reproducible paradigm of international statecraft.
By deliberately weaponising unpredictable diplomacy, prioritising national prosperity over institutional continuity, and asserting absolute national sovereignty against global governance constraints, Trumpism fundamentally is redefining how a great power can exercise leverage in the modern era.
Trump’s foreign policy will leave an indelible imprint on the contemporary international system. By challenging the foundational premises of the liberal international order, it will permanently alter the balance of power, forcing the world into a new era characterised by decentralised authority, heightened regionalism, and a continuous search for new governance models.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
