Trump and the End of the Unipolar World

There is concern in the United States and among Washington’s European and Asian allies regarding President Donald Trump’s “America First” policies, which could lead to a decline in American global leadership. This new policy may signal the end of American dominance in global leadership that Washington has enjoyed since the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the former Soviet Union on December 25, 1991.

This concern among U.S. allies and supporters of the Democratic Party within the United States stems exclusively from Trump’s policies across different regions of the world, particularly following his withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, the World Health Organization, imposing sanctions on the International Criminal Court, and the introduction of congressional resolutions calling for a complete withdrawal from the United Nations while halting U.S. funding, which exceeds $35 billion annually.

The calculations of those fearful of Trump’s behavior on the international stage are based on the belief that U.S. prominence in the global scene began with Washington’s entry into World War II and the victory alongside the Soviet Union for humanitarian values, defeating fascism and Nazism. The importance of American openness to the world over the past 80 years is underscored by the fact that the U.S., which constitutes only about 5% of the global population, dominates international trade. Major American cities serve as the headquarters for approximately 130 of the largest 500 companies in the world according to Fortune Global rankings, with the U.S. home to the highest number of billionaires globally. Moreover, American banks possess around $3 trillion, and Washington has approximately 220,000 troops stationed at over 900 military bases worldwide.

According to these calculations, some U.S. foreign policy planners fear that this could lead to a potential U.S. military withdrawal from Europe and the disbandment of NATO, especially after Trump shuttered the U.S. Agency for International Development and imposed tariffs on many countries, gradually shifting from “free trade” to “fair trade.” All of this may create an opening for Russia and China to fill the strategic void left by Trump’s decisions, particularly as perceptions of Russian and Chinese acceptability increase globally, escalating unease among Washington’s allies. Will Trump’s initiatives quickly contribute to a shift toward a “multipolar world”? And how ready will other poles, particularly China and Russia, be to fill the American gap?

Historical Debate

Since the era of the first U.S. president, George Washington, there has been a debate about the extent of U.S. involvement in international conflicts. In his farewell address, Washington warned his successor against engaging in European conflicts or allying one country against another in Europe. Many American presidents throughout the 19th century followed this same approach; in his inaugural address on March 4, 1801, second president Thomas Jefferson reiterated the principle of non-involvement in international disputes, often expressing gratitude for the Atlantic Ocean separating the U.S. from “European chaos.” When fifth president James Monroe came to power, he established what became known as the “Monroe Doctrine,” advocating against European intervention in Latin American affairs. This isolationist approach persisted until it was broken during the Spanish-American War in 1898, leading to increased U.S. involvement in international wars, including World War I and World War II. In the modern era, Democrats tend to bolster political, military, and economic alliances, such as the AUKUS alliance established by former President Joe Biden in September 2021 and the Trans-Pacific Partnership signed by former President Barack Obama on February 4, 2016, which Trump rescinded on his first day in office on January 20, 2020. Currently, Trump leans toward the policies of past presidents who championed “America First,” a slogan not originally his own but one that echoed the protests against U.S. involvement in World War II.

A Shift Towards Multipolarity

A significant faction within the United States, led by the Democratic Party, argues that all of Trump’s political, economic, and military movements strongly push towards a “multipolar world,” diminishing American dominance. This is occurring alongside a reduction in American commitments to its partners and allies, as well as the creation of political and trade tensions. Opponents of Trump believe there are opportunities for Russia and China to reshape the international order and establish a multipolar system through the following steps:

First – Filling the Void

Both Russia and China have shown readiness to fill the void left by Washington, particularly when China expressed its willingness to increase funding for the World Health Organization after Trump’s withdrawal. Furthermore, China indicated its readiness to provide new assistance to developing countries that previously received aid from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which Trump, along with Elon Musk, shut down. This paves the way for new and additional roles for Russia and China while simultaneously weakening American presence and momentum.

Second – Free Trade

When Trump imposed new tariffs on China, Beijing announced its intention to file a complaint with the World Trade Organization, a move that many viewed favorably. As a result of Trump’s tariffs, many countries are considering seeking new trade partners beyond the United States, potentially leading to significant American losses that are not yet fully apparent. There are predictions that China will become the primary trade partner for remaining regions of the world, having already established itself as the leading trade partner for the Gulf, Africa, and Latin America. The decisions taken by President Trump will ultimately favor Chinese-European trade relations.

Third – Emergence of Military Alternatives

No day passes in Europe without discussions about military alternatives to the approximately 100,000 American troops stationed there. Serious talks are underway regarding the potential provision of French nuclear weapons as an alternative to safeguard Europe if Trump withdraws American forces. Even Ukraine has indicated that it might consider establishing a European coalition for its defense should President Trump abandon it. Trump’s willingness to construct the American “Iron Dome” suggests a lack of interest in overseas military bases and alliances, which are usually viewed as a frontline defense for American territory.

Fourth – A New Equation for Military Alliances

Since the end of World War II, the United States has protected its allies, deploying around 50,000 troops to Japan, 28,500 to South Korea, and approximately 50,000 to Germany, alongside about 42,000 troops in the Middle East, spanning from Afghanistan and Pakistan in the east to Morocco in the west. Today, President Trump is proposing a new equation that many of these countries reject, requiring them to allocate about 5% of their national output to defense matters, with stipulations to purchase American weapons. He continually threatens allies that if they do not increase their defense budgets, they will be deprived of “American protective coverage.” This policy could drive NATO countries, the AUKUS alliance, the Quad alliance, and the Five Eyes alliance to seek alternative partners outside of the United States.

Fifth – The End of the Liberal Order

Trump’s actions in foreign policy are dismantling the “rules-based system” inherited from the end of World War II and signaling the demise of the “liberal order” that characterized U.S. leadership over the last century. This was acknowledged by Secretary of State Mark Rubio during his confirmation hearing, where he described the American liberal order as one that erodes daily. This implies a decline in the image of the United States as a leader of the liberal world, which had peaked after the collapse of the former Soviet Union.

Sixth – Erosion of International Organizations’ Role

Trump frequently criticizes international organizations such as the United Nations and has previously withdrawn from the International Human Rights Council. There are Republican representatives in the House and Senators advocating for a complete withdrawal from the UN and all its affiliated health and cultural institutions, such as UNESCO, from which Trump withdrew during his first term. Meanwhile, China and Russia maintain their commitment to international legitimacy, international law, and global organizations, granting other nations, like China and Russia, new global roles amid declining American dominance. Numerous demands are surfacing to eliminate dollar hegemony and reform international institutions, primarily the United Nations and the Security Council.

It is certain that Trump’s moves rooted in slogans like “America First” and “Making America Great Again” pave the way for the construction of a new world order, which will lead to the emergence of multiple players and poles in the new international system—a transformation that Trump contributes to, knowingly or unknowingly.