Dr Sudershan Kumar
sudershan.sk12@gmail.com
The global order that emerged after second World War was anchored upon predictability, multilateralism and institutional restraint. However the recent events have reshaped and shaken the order. The rise of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States marked a dramatic departure from the established norms. Trump’s foreign policy behaviour often impulsive, personality driven and transactional has accelerated the erosion of liberal international order, giving rise to what many experts describe as a chaotic and unstable world system. Unlike the traditional U.S Presidents, Trump relied heavily on personal instincts, social media declarations, and unilateral actions, often bypassing diplomatic channels and expert advice. So far, his decisions have been more reactive than strategic and also more personalized rather than institutional. This governance style has introduced strategic uncertainty, weakening the trust among allies and emboldening adversaries. Besides his decisions are also short term and politically driven. It is equally important to mention here that Donald Trump’s decisions are more in line with “American First Doctrine”. The core characteristic of the American First Doctrine is prioritizing U.S National interests and security above all other nations. This approach typically involves a foreign policy of non-intervention and economic nationalism, with focus on bilateral relations and skepticism of international institutions and multilateral agreements. Key characteristics include, prioritizing U.S Interests first, nationalism, skepticism of alliance and multilateralism, protectionist trade policy, bilateralism and energy dominance etc.
i) Trade Policy: Under Donald Trump’s administration the United States have adopted an aggressive protectionist trade policy aimed at reducing the trade deficits and revitalizing domestic manufacturing. This included imposing high tariff on imports from major trading partners such as China, the Europe and later India, among others. These measures formed what economists referred to as Tariff War. The primary goal was to protect U.S Industries and labour by making foreign import more expensive thereby encouraging American production and consumption of American domestic goods. However, these tariffs also prompted retaliation threats and supply chains adjustment globally. While the administration argued such policies would shrink the United States trade deficit, many global institutions warned that tariff increase could slow world wide economic global growth and elevate inflation, as high cost of imported input and consumer good, filtered through economics. In the long term, persistent tariff conflicts can undermine the confidence in the rule based trading system, prompt other countries to form competing trade blocks and shift investment away from the U.S.
ii) Energy Dominance: Trump’s foreign policy was deeply influenced by hydrocarbon geopolitics. Therefore the concept of energy dominance became a defining pillar of the strategic vision of Donald Trump. As per his belief, United States should maximize its domestic energy resources to secure economic growth strategic autonomy and geopolitical leverage. His approach marked a decisive departure from earlier emphasis on climate cooperation and multilateral energy governance. While the policy delivered short term gains for the U.S energy sector, its global repercussions, were complex, far reaching and in some cases destabilizing. It may not be out of context to mention here that this approach has reshaped the energy market. Donald Trump’s aggressive instance towards Venezuela was driven by vast oil reserves, anti U.S. leadership and ideological hostility to socialism. His order to U.S military to launch a military strike under code name “Operation Absolute Resolve” on Venezuela on 3rd January 2026 was an attempt to capture and delegitimize Venezuelan leadership. Under this operation, the United States launched a military strike on Venezuela and captured President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores. Maduro and Flores were flown unharmed to New York city by U.S forces to face trial there. More over the pictures of Maduro being handcuffed were also released. Although the U.S President Donald Trump and his administration justified the operation as law enforcement action, with military support citing that the president has inherent constitutional authority to undertake but the interim Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez denounced the capture as a kidnapping. It is surprising that the reactions of global leaders remained indifferent. Officials in the United nation (UN), the United States, and other countries as well as international law experts said the raid violated the UN charter and Venezuelan’s Sovereignty. Needless to mention here, that in modern era of technology the U.S has set up a “New Normal” for other powerful nations for punishing the elected leaders, who do not toe the line as per their whims and fancies. Taking clue from the “Operation Absolute Resolve”, Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif in a televised interview on 9th January stated that “United States should kidnap, Israel Prime Minister Just as the Venezuelan’s President Nicolas Maduro was taken away”. His bizarre statement was dubbed by journalist as uttered in amnesia. It is equally important to mention here that although U.S administration under Donald Trump succeeded in isolating the Maduro Government diplomatically yet it fell short of producing regime change, and hence intensified humanitarian suffering and geopolitical rivalry. The Venezuela thus stands as cautionary example of unilateral pressure tactics far reaching global consequences.
iii) Withdrawal from 66 International Organizations: The United States under President Donald Trump has recently announced its withdrawal from dozens of UN – affiliated bodies and other international organizations. The rationale for the withdrawal is that the Trump administration considers these 66 organizations as misaligned with the U.S goals.a) Sovereignty and Independence. The whole house argues that these bodies represent a globalist agenda and sprawling architecture of “Global Governance” that constraints American Sovereignty and domestic policy. b) Fiscal Responsibility: As per officials these organizations are redundant, wasteful, and poorly run claiming billions in tax pager’s dollar with little return. c) Ideological Divergence: The administration specifically targeted entities they, categorized as promoting diversity, radical climate policies and woke initiatives: d) Economic Interest: Organizations promoting rapid decarbonization are viewed by Trump administration, harmful to U.S fossil fuel interest and economic growth. Last and the most important is strategic shift towards bilateralism. Trump administration is moving away from multilateral systems towards bilateral agreements, where the U.S works directly with individual countries rather than through international frame works. While withdrawing from these 66 bodies, the U.S currently remains a member of essential humanitarian and security forums such as U.N Security Council, UNICEF and the World Food Programme. It is worth mentioning here that decisions taken by U.S. administration during Donald Trump’s second term has marginalized UN as a meaningful arbitrator of global order. First, the Trump administrator has openly preferred lateral deals, coercive diplomacy, and military deterrence over multilateral consensus.
By bypassing the U.N in addressing conflicts in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Indo-pacific, the U.S has signaled that UN approval is no longer essential for major power action. This has emboldened other powers to ignore U.N processes, accelerating institutional decay. Second, Trump’s financial and political disengagement from UN body has struck the organization’s operational back bone. Reduce funding, conditional contributions and public criticism of U.N. agencies particularly, those dealing with climate change human rights has undermined their legitimacy. Third, Trumps, explicitly disregard for the U.N Security Council’s authority has been pivotal. The United Nation Security Council, already paralyzed by Veto Politics has been further weakened as the U.S increasingly acts without UNSC mandates.
The author is of the opinion that Trump’s impulsive decision making does not merely reflects an unconventional leadership style. It has reshaped global politics, accelerating disorder and weakening norms painstakingly over decades. Hence the emerging world order is therefore not fully structured but increasingly unstable, multi polar, and competitive. The future will be defined by whether global powers choose renewed cooperation or continue down the path of unilateralism and strategic rivalry. The choice made in coming decade will determine whether the international system evolves towards reforms and balance or descends into prolonged disorder and conflict. That time will tell.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
