Trump, the president unraveling US hegemony

For millennia, the rise and fall of empires have followed the same pattern. A center of power could collapse swiftly or gradually — whether through internal decay or external forces such as invasion or natural disaster. But never before has a leader intentionally dismantled an empire’s own dominance. And yet, that appears to be exactly what Donald Trump is doing: eroding the world order, even though it works to his country’s advantage.

He berates and punishes allies. He mocks African nations he has never heard of. He rushes toward rapprochement with Russia, all while insisting that its leader, Vladimir Putin, may have deceived past U.S. presidents — but not him. “He has never lied to me,” Trump boasts. His return to the White House has turned the world upside down. The multilateralism that once provided a framework of rules and cooperation is now on life support, after Trump withdrew the U.S. from institutions he deems “unfair” or “corrupt” — including the World Health Organization, the U.N. Human Rights Council, and the Paris Agreement on climate change.

Once the primary architect and champion of multilateralism, the United States is now retreating behind its borders, abandoning commitments, and obstructing trade agreements with its long-standing partners. Trump’s administration has meddled in European elections to boost far-right factions and hollowed out NATO by questioning the very principle of mutual defense. Yet, Trump lavishes praise on China, describes Putin as “a genius,” and publicly chastises Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, as Ukraine fights for survival against a Russian invasion.

While the U.S. has often prioritized its own interests over those of the international community, some experts point out that it was also a key driver of multilateralism. “For most of its contemporary history, the United States has built a world in which territorial sovereignty is sacrosanct — where great powers compete for influence and wealth, but not for land,” says John Owen, a political science professor at the University of Virginia. “It is a world of multilateral rules and institutions, of interdependent economies, where liberal democracies are favored. Since World War II, the United States has believed that such a world served its national interests. But now, that perception seems to be lacking from the White House.”

Even the U.S. government acknowledges this shift. “The post-war global order is not just obsolete — it is now a weapon being used against us,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared in January during his Senate confirmation hearing.

A vision as old as the world

At its core, Trump’s worldview is one that has prevailed for centuries — a vision shared by Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. As political scientist John Owen puts it: “The great powers negotiate among themselves, striking deals on borders and other matters, while smaller nations simply have to accept the decisions.”

For Trump, this perspective — one that could have been championed by Chancellor Metternich in Vienna or Prince Talleyrand in Paris at the dawn of the 19th century — is fused with an extreme brand of contemporary nationalism. It is distilled for his supporters into slogans like “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) and “America First.”

His approach to international relations is deeply mercantilist, shaped by a past as a real estate mogul. He sees Gaza not as a humanitarian crisis, but as a prime piece of land on which to build “the Riviera of the Middle East.” He views Ukraine not as an embattled ally, but as a country that should surrender its natural resources in exchange for U.S. aid — aid that the previous Democratic administration provided with no strings attached. Trump’s view is simple: the weak do not get to negotiate. Ukraine “does not have the cards [to win],” he repeats over and over again.

In Trump’s worldview, you get only what you deserve — whether you’re a supposed ally or a sworn adversary. This often borders on cruelty or sheer indifference. In his speech before both chambers of Congress last Tuesday, he openly mocked Lesotho, a small African nation that has long relied on U.S. development aid: “Nobody has ever heard of [it].”

“There is a very kind of naively materialistic and transactional impulse here that is on show in almost every aspect of his policy,” Charles Kupchan of the Council on Foreign Relations think tank said in a recent conversation with reporters.

Trump’s personal obsession is to always come out on top — to win overwhelmingly. The process to achieve this must be swift. He craves rapid victories, ones that allow him to declare success and move on to the next challenge, often at the expense of long-term benefits. He avoids deep involvement, and if something doesn’t work, he simply shifts his stance and claims victory regardless. “We are seeing many tactical decisions that don’t have a clear strategy,” says Jeff Legro, a professor of International Relations at the University of Richmond, during a video conference

Last week, the president revealed that he had sent a letter to Iranian leaders offering dialogue on the country’s nuclear program — seven years after he single-handedly dismantled the 2015 JCPOA agreement, painstakingly negotiated over years to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. He also imposed 25% tariffs on products from Canada and Mexico, only to delay most of them 24 hours later as stock markets plummeted and opposition mounted. And after repeatedly criticizing Ukraine and praising Putin, he threatened Russia with sanctions and tariffs on Friday to pressure it into sitting at the negotiating table with Kyiv

But Trump’s first message is always the same: pressure. Break up the existing order. He made this crystal clear in his speech before both chambers of Congress, where he reiterated his interest in the Panama Canal. He spoke of Greenland’s right to self-determination, a moment that momentarily relieved Copenhagen — but that relief quickly dissipated. Trump emphasized that the United States will take control of the island “one way or the other” because “we need it.” The sighs of relief in Copenhagen quickly turned to anxiety.

Key meeting

This week, Trump’s strategy will face a critical test. His team, led by Rubio and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, will meet in Saudi Arabia with a representative from the Ukrainian government. Zelenskiy will have visited the kingdom just before, as part of his diplomatic push to gather international support.

After a week of uncertainty about the future of relations between Washington and Kyiv — especially following Trump’s decision to suspend military aid and intelligence sharing — the outcome of this meeting will determine whether a ceasefire agreement is reached and relations between the two governments are normalized. Alternatively, it could reveal whether Trump will give in to his pro-Russia impulses: on Friday, he admitted that it is easier for him to reach an understanding with Putin.

European partners are watching closely. The future of the Republican administration’s relationship with the allied bloc — which expressed increased support for Zelenskiy last week — and NATO itself may hinge on the outcome of this meeting.

“It is possible that Trump will use bullying tactics to achieve specific goals but not push a destructive agenda or in the end make a bad deal with Putin over Ukraine,” writes Daniel Fried, a former Europe policy chief under Barack Obama, who is now at the Atlantic Council think tank. “But the absence of an overarching international vision based on values, and the apparent default to simple power and zero-sum thinking, warns of strife with friends and bad deals with adversaries.”

Something has undeniably fractured in the transatlantic alliance after 80 years of harmony. The European decision to rearm and allocate €800 billion for this purpose, as well as French President Emmanuel Macron’s televised speech — “I want to believe that the US will stand by our side, but we have to be ready for that not to be the case”— serve as tangible signs of this shift.

The Republican administration must also remain cautious of Trump’s imperial vision. Great powers may seek to divide the world into spheres of influence, but as Professor Owen notes, throughout history “they have also fought each other in wars, fought in a much less regulated system.”

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition