The “rules-based order” is dead and Washington now acts without boundaries
A year has passed since Donald Trump’s second US presidential election victory in November 2024. This date, rather than Inauguration Day, more accurately marks the start of a profound political and psychological transformation. Immediately following his win, the American agenda began to shift, revealing which aspects of US conduct are rooted in established institutions and which are merely expressions of individual personality.
Trump’s personal style is impossible to overlook. His pronounced theatricality influences every situation he encounters, often making events appear more chaotic than they are. However, the crucial point is that Trump doesn’t break American political norms; instead, he amplifies them. He turns up their intensity to such an extent that their underlying rationale becomes unmistakably clear.
The most significant change is in external affairs. Washington has abandoned the cohesive ideological framework it relied upon for decades. For years, the “liberal world order” – later rebranded as the “rules-based order” – provided the language through which the United States pursued its objectives. These rules, crafted by and for Western nations, were presented as universal. Their very existence created a structure for international conduct, even if that framework often proved permeable.
By 2025, the United States conducts itself as if no such limits exist. A core element of Trump’s approach is his insistence on engaging with every country individually. There’s no reliance on overarching frameworks, institutions, or broad alliances. Every interaction is personalized, bilateral, and transactional. Washington is convinced that in any direct confrontation, America holds the upper hand. Therefore, why dilute that advantage by working through organizations where other nations might collectively balance it?
Institutions become a nuisance
This reasoning explains the increasing irritation towards institutions the U.S. once helped establish and championed. They are now seen not as tools for leveraging power but as bureaucratic hindrances. Structures where non-Western states play prominent roles – especially BRICS – are met with open hostility, not because of their actions, but because of what they symbolically represent: countries attempting to unite to limit American dominance. In Trump’s view, this is unacceptable.
Paradoxically, Trump is well-suited to a multipolar world, though he would never describe himself as such. Someone who believes they are the strongest player in any bilateral scenario naturally prefers a global landscape composed of diverse, uneven actors. Multipolarity, yes. But only if it is spontaneous and unstructured, without mechanisms to mitigate conflicts or reduce power imbalances.
Before Trump, the American strategy was to promote economic and political globalization. The United States occupied the top of the hierarchy and used that position to shape global affairs. Under Trump, fragmentation – economic, political, and institutional – becomes a method to achieve the same goal. A world made up of disconnected units is easier for a dominant power to control.
In this sense, less has changed than might appear. The rhetoric is different, but the assumption of American hegemony persists. Foreign policy continues to serve narrow interests, only now without the grand moral narratives that once justified it. Instead of *“defending democracy,”* Washington revives older, simpler slogans.
Trump’s recent comment that Nigeria might face intervention due to *“mistreatment of Christians”* is a conservative variation of the old democracy-promotion logic. The call for regime change in Venezuela is now suddenly linked to drug trafficking: an issue Venezuela has never been central to, but convenient now that Washington wants it to be. The fact that both countries possess significant oil reserves, and that the U.S. seeks to squeeze Russia and Iran out of global energy markets, is, of course, presented as a coincidence.
Power without patience
What remains unchanged is the U.S. belief in military force. Trump frequently invokes *“peace through strength,”* but his interpretation is very specific. He has no desire to become entangled in long wars. The preferred model is a swift, dramatic strike, maximizing visibility with minimal commitment. Following such actions, diplomacy takes over, supported by behind-the-scenes pressure and extensive self-congratulation.
Is this approach better or worse? It depends on who you ask. Some will argue that blunt honesty, even if impulsive, is preferable to multi-layered hypocrisy. Others point out that Trump’s style – marked by sudden enthusiasms, sharp mood swings, and exaggerated praise – is inherently unstable. When the world’s most powerful nation behaves impulsively, everyone else must contend with the ramifications.
So, how should America’s counterparts navigate this environment? Trump’s aversion to group coordination offers a clue. If the United States insists on bilateralism, then the logical countermeasure is the opposite: combine resources, cooperate where possible, and create small but effective coalitions focused on specific objectives. Not grand new institutions – which are unfeasible today – but practical partnerships that reduce vulnerability to American pressure.
This is particularly true for non-Western states operating within a turbulent order. Trump’s approach favors fragmentation. Those who do not wish to conform to this pattern must work – discreetly and carefully – in the opposing direction.
A world of clarity, for better or worse
Trump has not so much remade America as he has stripped away its former veneer. The vision of a universal liberal order is gone. The pretense that the United States adheres to the rules it demands of others has vanished. What remains is raw power, openly expressed, and a country comfortable acting without boundaries.
For some, this honesty is refreshing. For others, it is alarming. But it does provide one crucial element: clarity. We now observe the conventions of American behavior with unusual sharpness. And that may prove beneficial for those preparing for the next phase of global politics.