On Trump Era American Hegemony
The Accidental Catalyst
An aristocracy dedicated to the service of this nation on behalf of principles beyond partisanship. - Kissinger
In 2024, global politics are in a state of flux. The foundations of the post-World War II order, which has dominated international relations for over seventy years, are being tested like never before. The decline of American dominance, the rise of new powers like China and Russia, and the erosion of long-standing alliances are signaling that the era of unquestioned American hegemony may be coming to an end. At the center of this seismic shift is former President Donald Trump, a figure whose return to power could inadvertently challenge the very framework of global stability.
Henry Kissinger, in his reflections on Trump’s impact, suggested that the former president could be one of those historical figures “who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses.” Kissinger’s insight is key: while Trump may not be actively seeking to overhaul the international system, his actions and rhetoric have sparked a critical reassessment of the rules-based order that has governed the world since 1945. In essence, Trump may serve as an unintentional catalyst for the world to reconsider its governing framework, forcing countries to grapple with the question: what kind of world order is best suited for the challenges of the 21st century?
The Post-WWII Order
The rules-based international order, largely shaped by the United States and its allies after World War II, has been built on the principles of liberal democracy, market economics, and a commitment to the idea that international cooperation is essential for maintaining peace and stability. This system has created a relative peace among major powers and facilitated unprecedented economic growth, supported by institutions such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and NATO.
This order is now being questioned from multiple fronts. Donald Trump, during his presidency, openly challenged the assumptions that underpinned this framework. From his “America First” rhetoric to his disdain for multilateral agreements, Trump’s foreign policy actions and his questioning of longstanding alliances have highlighted the contradictions within the current system. In essence, his presidency illuminated the fragility of a world order that, while successful in many ways, has failed to adapt to the changing geopolitical landscape of the 21st century.
The Changing Geopolitical Landscape
Trump’s departure from traditional diplomacy has coincided with the rise of other major powers seeking to challenge the global system. Russian President Vladimir Putin, for instance, has openly rejected the post-WWII order, calling it outdated and in need of reform. “The era of the Western order is ending,” Putin declared in 2021, advocating for a “multipolar” world in which power is distributed more evenly among different nations. This rhetoric has been accompanied by actions such as Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its ongoing military interventions in Ukraine.
Similarly, China’s rise as an economic and military power has altered the global balance of power. Under President Xi Jinping, China has pushed for a greater role in shaping the international order, promoting its own version of governance and economic management through initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. In this sense, China’s vision of a multipolar world order stands in stark contrast to the unipolar dominance the United States enjoyed after the Cold War.
These shifts reflect a larger global trend: the decline of American hegemony and the rise of multiple power centers. In this context, Trump’s foreign policy actions—his withdrawal from international agreements, his skepticism about NATO, and his preference for bilateral deals—can be seen as a reflection of a broader geopolitical shift. As Kissinger has noted, each generation faces its own unique challenge, and the current challenge may be the redefinition of the global order in the face of new and competing power centers.
Rules-Based Order
While a reimagined global framework might address some of the weaknesses exposed by recent shifts, it also carries significant risks. One of the greatest dangers lies in the possibility of increased conflict during the transition period. The post-WWII order, despite its flaws, has provided a rough stability through shared norms and clear expectations about sovereignty and intervention. A multipolar world with several competing power centers might reintroduce the volatility seen in earlier periods of history, where balancing alliances and regional rivalries led to frequent clashes.
Trump’s return to office could further amplify this risk by accelerating a sense of American disengagement, potentially emboldening authoritarian leaders who seek to expand their spheres of influence. Putin, for instance, has repeatedly described the current international system as a relic of a unipolar world that no longer reflects the distribution of global power. Speaking in 2021, he argued that “the era of the Western order is ending,” calling for a new structure based on “respect for sovereignty and multipolarity.” This rhetoric not only seeks to justify actions like the invasion of Ukraine but also points to an ambition for a world in which large powers exert control over their respective regions without interference from outside forces. Such moves could destabilize areas far beyond Europe, setting dangerous precedents.
There is also the risk that a weakened global order could make it harder to address pressing transnational issues such as climate change, nuclear proliferation, and cybersecurity. The traditional alliances that currently underpin these efforts would need to be rebuilt or redefined, potentially delaying coordinated action. In a period where time-sensitive challenges demand swift responses, a fragmented global framework could impede meaningful progress, leaving humanity vulnerable to crises that no single country can manage alone.
Moreover, a more multipolar world could complicate economic relations. With countries like China and Russia actively seeking to establish alternative financial systems, a divided global economy could arise, where trade, technology, and investment flow along competing networks. For businesses and citizens alike, this could mean less efficiency, fewer choices, and higher costs. Additionally, as international supply chains fragment, nations may turn to protectionism, weakening the economic interdependence that has acted as a peacekeeping force in the current order.
Benefits of Reinvention
Despite these risks, a reinvented order may offer key benefits, especially if nations manage the transition carefully. A shift away from American-centric governance could foster greater regional resilience and reduce overreliance on any single power. For example, a Europe that strengthens its defense capabilities may not only be better equipped to handle local threats but could also take on a larger role in addressing crises in neighboring regions, such as North Africa or the Middle East. A world with multiple centers of influence could distribute responsibility more equitably, potentially reducing the strain on any one nation and fostering a diversity of solutions to global problems.
This distributed responsibility might also yield a more inclusive and culturally pluralistic order. Rather than imposing a single set of values or norms globally, a multipolar framework could allow for a coexistence of different systems—democracies, quasi-democracies, and non-democratic models alike—provided that core principles of sovereignty and non-aggression are respected. This could create room for more innovative approaches to governance, environmental policy, and even economic systems, as countries pursue unique paths suited to their cultural and historical contexts.
From an economic perspective, the rise of regional trade blocs and alternative financial arrangements could drive new forms of cooperation. For instance, trade agreements between Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia, independent of Western influence, might emerge, allowing these regions to negotiate on terms that prioritize their developmental needs. Such arrangements could reduce dependency on Western financial institutions like the IMF, which have often imposed stringent conditions on borrowing nations. The result could be a more balanced global economy that recognizes the needs of emerging markets as much as those of established powers.
As Kissinger observed in a 2014 interview, “Each generation must reinvent itself.” By loosening some of the old constraints, a redefined global order may allow nations to craft frameworks that are more adaptive and relevant to contemporary issues.
The Accidental Catalyst
If Trump’s return to the presidency represents a continued departure from the traditions that defined post-WWII American foreign policy, it may inadvertently accelerate this evolution of the rules-based order. Although Trump may not be intentionally setting out to reformulate the global framework, his nontraditional approach has already disrupted the norms upon which it depends. This disruption, unsettling as it may be, could force the world to confront a difficult but necessary question: What kind of global order is best suited to the realities of the 21st century?
In his own way, Trump embodies what Kissinger calls “a figure in history who marks the end of an era.” He may lack a clear alternative vision, but his impact has nevertheless ignited debate about the limitations of the existing system. Through his actions—whether intentional or not—Trump has catalyzed a reevaluation of the global order that policymakers, academics, and citizens around the world must now navigate.
The challenge will be to manage this transition in a way that minimizes the risks of fragmentation while harnessing the potential for a more adaptable and equitable order. A multipolar world, with diverse centers of influence and a plurality of approaches to governance, could reflect the realities of an interconnected but ideologically varied planet. While the path forward is uncertain and fraught with challenges, the opportunity to craft a new framework—one that respects sovereignty, encourages cooperation, and addresses contemporary global threats—represents perhaps the greatest geopolitical challenge of our time.
In the end, Trump’s legacy may not lie in the policies he advocates or the rhetoric he uses but in the broader reckoning he forces upon the world. His return could indeed serve as a powerful, if accidental, catalyst for transformation, compelling us to reconsider the very foundations of the international order. And, as Kissinger himself has observed, “Every period of history has a unique challenge and a unique solution,” reminding us that the future of global stability may rest not in holding onto the past but in finding the courage to