Trump’s America represents a crucial transformation in global dynamics. The country now acts as a rogue superpower that focuses on its interests rather than following isolationist or internationalist paths. The United States stands alone among major economies with its large, growing market and fiscal strength to maintain a global military presence through 2040. This advantage becomes more striking when compared to China, which will see its young workforce and consumer base (ages 20-49) shrink by 225 million – a 36% reduction from current levels.
American unilateralism stems from its position of remarkable independence. The country’s economy shows minimal trade dependence, with exports at just 11% of GDP compared to the global average of 30%. The nation’s military might remains unmatched as it can wage major wars thousands of miles from its borders. Defense pacts bind roughly 70 countries to America’s protection – these nations make up one-fifth of the world’s population and a third of its economic output. Public opinion has taken a dramatic turn, as more than 60% of Americans believe their country should focus on domestic interests. Nearly half the population opposes sending troops to defend allies under attack.
From Global Leader to Lone Actor
Image Source: Center for American Progress
Donald Trump’s second presidency marks a dramatic break from decades of American foreign policy. The United States now acts alone on the world stage. This nation, once celebrated as the architect of the post-World War II liberal order, now tears down the institutions it built.
The end of liberal hegemony
Trump’s leadership has challenged liberal hegemony, which shaped American foreign policy from 1991 until roughly 2017. This approach built on democracy, economic interdependence, and international institutions is changing faster than ever.
Trump signed an “America First Policy Directive” on his first day in office. The directive told the Secretary of State that US foreign policy must put American interests above everything else. This move broke from the liberal internationalist consensus that guided American diplomacy since the Cold War ended.
The post-World War II order, built through US efforts, faces destruction. A new framework emerges where authoritarianism, imperialism, and protectionism replace democracy, human rights, and free trade.
Trump’s administration altered the map of global order in just 100 days of his second term. They dismantled the foundations of U.S. leadership systematically. The administration pulled out of key international agencies, including:
- The World Health Organization
- The World Trade Organization (effectively)
- The United Nations Human Rights Council
- UNESCO
- Climate agreements and forums
On top of that, the administration’s February 2025 executive order demands a detailed review of all international organizations and treaties within 180 days. The review aims to decide if U.S. support should end. This complete rejection of working together shows a fundamental change in America’s global position.
The effects show already. European Council on Foreign Relations polls found that Brazil’s, India’s, Russia’s, Saudi Arabia’s, and Turkey’s majorities saw Trump’s election as positive for their nations. European allies viewed it as a threat. A February 2025 YouGov poll showed that favorable views of the United States dropped by 6 to 28 percentage points across seven European countries after Trump returned to office.
United States of America vs Donald Trump: a change in vision
Traditional American foreign policy stands in stark contrast to Trump’s vision. The United States built its global influence by advancing open markets and societies together. Trump prefers cutthroat competition and arms-length suspicion.
Trump’s competitive, deal-making approach rejects any “global community” idea. He sees the world as an arena where nations and businesses fight for advantage. This view treats alliances as temporary arrangements with value only when useful.
Trump’s disregard for traditional alliances has changed security calculations worldwide. His hostility toward Ukraine—suggesting Kyiv accept Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea for peace—and veiled threats toward NATO allies have convinced many that the United States can’t be trusted.
Former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull captured this feeling in April: “We are dealing with a very different America… We’re dealing with an America whose values no longer line up with ours”. Singapore’s defense minister noted that America’s image “has changed from liberator to revolutionary force to a landlord seeking rent”.
Trump ordered strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, showing his team’s preference for force over diplomacy. He appears distant from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu but hasn’t pushed Netanyahu and Hamas enough to end the Gaza conflict.
China steps in as Washington steps back. President Xi Jinping promotes an international order that favors non-binding partnerships based on common interests over universal values. China positions itself as an alternative to American leadership through its Global Development Initiative, Global Security Initiative, and Global Civilization Initiative.
The “United States of Trump” represents more than a policy shift. It fundamentally recasts America’s global role from liberal order architect to a rogue power chasing self-interest, whatever the collateral damage.
The Drivers Behind the Shift
The U.S. has made a dramatic move toward unilateralism. Several domestic forces have altered the map of how America deals with global issues. These internal pressures explain why the United States now acts like a rogue superpower.
Domestic backlash against globalization
American support for economic globalization has dropped sharply in the last decade. Several factors caused this change. The global financial crisis, regional economic problems, rising tensions with China and Russia, and climate change worries have reshaped how people view international trade, foreign investment, labor migration, and tech exchange.
People in industrialized economies like the U.S. worry most about losing their jobs. After 2001, millions of American jobs went overseas. This happened right after China joined the World Trade Organization. Americans suddenly had to compete for jobs they once took for granted.
Street protesters aren’t the only ones pushing back. We see this through election results in countries from Poland to Peru. Many Americans doubt the benefits of trade even when shown solid evidence. This is especially true for those who already worry about imports from China and American job losses.
Economic inequality and political polarization
America’s role as a global leader hasn’t benefited everyone equally. The top 10 percent of the world’s population now owns more than three-quarters of global wealth. The United States has the biggest wealth gap among developed nations. Globalization’s uneven rewards have made this gap worse.
Manufacturing’s decline weakened labor unions. Today, only 10% of workers have union representation, down from 50% forty years ago. The national minimum wage hasn’t changed in years and has lost 16% of its value in the last fifty years. These economic pressures have created deeper political divides.
Our politicians rarely agree on policies anymore. This divide between parties keeps growing. More extreme candidates have run for office since the 1980s. Regular Americans aren’t as divided as they think. Yet they strongly dislike members of the other party. This emotional split started before social media, alongside the growth of cable news and talk radio.
Studies show this emotional divide comes from wrong ideas about the other party’s policies. People fear threats to democracy and misunderstand who their political opponents really are. Both parties dislike each other equally, but political violence has increased mostly from the right.
The appeal of nationalism in the age of the US
Trump’s nationalism speaks to many Americans who feel their identity and economic security are under threat. Sociologists have found four types of American nationalists:
- Ardent nationalists (24%): Feel strongly connected to the United States and believe a “true American” must speak English, live in the US most of their life, and typically be Christian and born here
- Restrictive nationalists (38%): Have some national pride but limit who counts as American
- Creedal/civic nationalists (22%): Support liberal values and are more open about who can be American
- The disengaged (17%): Don’t feel much pride in American institutions or identify strongly with the country
More globalization naturally leads to “increased national assertion, worries about the loss of identity”. Economic uncertainty and immigration concerns make nationalist feelings stronger. Trump taps into this by promising “a vision of a restored and idealized America, a rollback of recent social gains, and a reassertion of national identity grounded in religion and race”.
His recent order to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities shows how nationalism affects foreign policy. He ignored international consensus and chose decisive, America-first military strikes instead. Such actions make his supporters even more loyal, as they see traditional diplomacy as weak.
Trump’s Foreign Policy Playbook
Image Source: The New York Times
Trump’s foreign policy shows how a superpower can operate outside normal rules while maintaining massive influence. His team created a unique strategy that puts American power ahead of working together, which has changed how countries interact worldwide.
Unilateralism in trade and defense
The life-blood of Trump’s foreign policy rejects working with multiple countries. He prefers direct, one-on-one deals where America can use its full power. Trump pulled America out of many international agreements during his first term. These included the Paris Climate Accord, Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA), and Trans-Pacific Partnership. America now acts more independently on the world stage in his second presidency.
This independent streak shows up clearly in defense matters too. Trump often questions America’s role in NATO. He calls the alliance “obsolete” and suggests U.S. protection should depend on how much allies spend on defense. His view turns long-standing security arrangements into business deals rather than mutually beneficial alliances.
The “age of the US” that Trump foresees means America gives orders instead of building agreement. His team replaced teamwork with direct demands. They believe America’s economic and military strength allows it to act alone.
The use of sanctions and tariffs as leverage
Economic pressure serves as the second main tool in Trump’s foreign policy. His administration uses sanctions more than ever before. They employ these economic weapons against both enemies and friends as an alternative to military conflict.
Trump uses tariffs enthusiastically against:
- Chinese imports (25% on $250 billion worth of goods)
- European automobile imports (threatened 25% tariffs)
- Mexican products (threatened escalating tariffs tied to immigration enforcement)
- Canadian aluminum and steel
Global trade has changed dramatically as a result. Supply chains now adapt to this new reality. The administration sees these economic measures as permanent features of a new world order where “united states of trump” rules through financial pressure.
This approach differs greatly from traditional American leadership. The U.S. used to build teams before applying pressure. Trump does the opposite: he pressures first, then makes demands alone.
Trump’s order to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites: a case study
The June 2025 bombing order of Iran’s nuclear facilities perfectly shows Trump’s foreign policy in action. Iran announced it would enrich uranium to 60% purity levels. Tensions grew for months. Trump then authorized strikes without asking international allies or seeking UN Security Council approval.
This decision came after he abandoned the Iran nuclear deal in his first term. Many experts say this move made Iran’s nuclear program grow faster instead of slowing it down. The bombing order shows how “what is the policy of unilateralism?” turns into real military action.
We learned several key things about Trump’s approach from this case:
He prefers military action over talking things out. He acts without international agreement. He believes American military power protects against any backlash or international criticism.
European allies felt shocked they weren’t consulted. Russia and China spoke against the action at the UN Security Council. In spite of that, Trump defended the strikes. He said America had to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons when international organizations failed to act.
This whole ordeal perfectly captures the “united states of america vs donald trump” situation. Traditional American diplomatic methods gave way to bold, independent action that shows strength at home while shocking other countries.
Demographic and Technological Leverage
America’s position as a rogue superpower in the united states of trump era comes from two often overlooked advantages. The nation’s favorable demographics and tech superiority create asymmetric power over rivals, which drives its increasing unilateralism.
Why aging weakens U.S. rivals
Demographics give America a clear edge in long-term geopolitical competition. U.S. allies—Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand—are aging faster. This makes them more dependent on American protection. China faces an unprecedented demographic challenge. Its population started declining in 2022, and by 2035, China will have more people over 65 than America.
The numbers tell a striking story. One estimate suggests China’s GDP growth will fall below America’s in the 2030s because its dependency ratio will be higher than America’s. This population decline might push China toward riskier moves regarding Taiwan. This could explain why the united states of america vs donald trump approach to China has become more confrontational.
Automation as a strategic advantage
In the age of the us, automation is a vital strategic edge. The aging U.S. population speeds up industrial automation. This turns what could be a weakness into strength. The benefits show up in several ways:
- Better productivity and faster market delivery
- Fewer workplace injuries and lower insurance costs
- Better quality control through sensor tech
- More flexible manufacturing with quick changeovers
Automation solves America’s labor market challenges while creating military advantages. Almost 90% of workers say automation helps them work better and decide faster. This tech advantage lets American manufacturing keep up output despite workforce challenges.
The rise of ‘destruction from a distance’
Remote warfare tech changes what is the policy of unilateralism? by removing a key limit—casualty risk. Remote weapons systems eliminate worry about personnel losses. This lowers barriers to military action. A pilot in Nevada can target fighters 8,000 miles away with a joystick.
Trump’s recent order to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities showed this capability clearly. Such actions show how distance warfare enables unilateral actions with less political risk at home. Today, nearly a third of United States’ military aircraft fly without pilots. This marks a big change in warfare capabilities.
Remote lethal drone technology represents a transformation in warfare capabilities that rivals nuclear weapons. A drone costing less than $100,000 can now take out targets worth millions. This creates a huge advantage when fighting against conventional forces.
The Fallout for Global Alliances
Image Source: The Asia Live
“We have spent trillions of dollars over time—on planes, missiles, ships, equipment—building up our military to provide a strong defense for Europe and Asia. The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense—and, if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves.” — Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States
American influence faces a critical test as long-standing alliances show signs of breaking down in the united states of trump era. The administration’s sudden policy changes have triggered ripple effects that shake the very foundations of global partnerships.
NATO and the erosion of trust
Trump never trusted NATO. He believed America paid too much while getting little in return. His campaign rally message left no room for doubt. He told allies he would “absolutely not” defend them if they failed to meet defense spending targets. He would let Russia “do whatever the hell they want”. These words struck at the heart of NATO’s mutual defense clause—Article 5—and weakened its power to deter threats.
Real-world consequences have emerged from this breakdown. European NATO members don’t deal very well with Russia’s aggressive stance because they can’t count on American support. Many members have started building up their own defense systems to protect themselves if the U.S. leaves the alliance.
Allies as buffers, not partners
America’s view of its allies has changed radically. The policy of unilateralism treats them as shields against enemies rather than true partners in a shared security system.
JD Vance showed this mindset at the Munich Security Conference. He criticized European allies while China’s Foreign Minister presented ideas about working together. Traditional partners have started to adjust their approach. Poland spends 4.7% of GDP on defense—the highest in NATO—yet now thinks over its heavy dependence on American equipment.
The future of U.S. commitments abroad
The age of the us has turned America into a rogue power. Its allies adapt with new strategies. European nations build direct relationships with each other. They flex their diplomatic muscle and leave America out of the picture. The European Union works on a €150 billion defense procurement plan that mostly excludes U.S. companies.
Trump’s decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities without consulting allies shows America’s new approach. The U.S. acts alone, whatever the impact on alliances.
What Comes After Trump?
Image Source: The Wall Street Journal
America’s unilateral actions under Trump, especially the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities without consulting allies, raise questions about its future as a global power. The global power dynamics continue to evolve and create uncertainty about what comes next.
Will the rogue superpower model persist?
Trump’s influence on American foreign policy might last beyond his presidency. Brookings analyst Thomas Wright points out, “The day after a Trump victory, allies would have to plan for the withdrawal of US security guarantees, rivals would look for ways to exploit the shift in US strategy, and markets would be rocked by the prospect of a new era of protectionism”. This change has already begun. Trump’s second term team includes loyalists like Sen. Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, and Rep. Mike Waltz who show little interest in limiting his foreign policy goals.
Can nationalism be channeled into global leadership?
America now faces a crucial choice: “to engage in a gradual, carefully managed transformation of its own supremacy into a self-sustaining international system, or to rely primarily on its national power to insulate itself from the international anarchy that would follow a disengagement”. Nationalism now takes center stage. The recent order to bomb Iran shows how America acts without considering international boundaries.
The role of public opinion in shaping foreign policy
Public opinion shapes this path by a lot. Chicago Council Survey data shows Americans’ top priorities:
- Preventing terrorist attacks (73%)
- Keeping illegal drugs out (64%)
- Preventing weapons of mass destruction proliferation (63%)
These priorities will guide policy more than international agreements. Young Americans see the world as less threatening and want less ambitious global leadership. The data reveals an interesting trend – almost three-in-ten Americans believe supporting Israel (31%), promoting democracy (28%), and supporting Ukraine (27%) should not be priorities at all.
American foreign policy’s future lies in the balance between decreasing public support to involve globally and America’s unmatched military strength. Trump’s administration has shown it will use this power alone when needed.
The Transformation of American Power
Trump’s unilateral strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities means more than just a military action. It marks America’s complete change from global leader to rogue superpower. This radical alteration reshapes the scene that existed since World War II.
America’s demographic advantages give it power in this new reality. The United States keeps its youth and economic strength while competitors like China face population decline and aging societies. On top of that, its tech superiority through automation and remote warfare lets America act alone without risking many casualties – as showed in the recent Iran strikes.
Traditional allies trust America less now as NATO members doubt its reliability. In spite of that, the United States can act independently because of its unique mix of economic self-sufficiency and military power. Trump’s team sees allies as business deals rather than partners who share a global vision.
Many Americans back this America First approach, but its future remains unclear. The public wants to focus on domestic issues over international promises. Yet America has unmatched power to act globally – power that Trump is willing to use alone.
The world must therefore adapt to this new reality where America operates outside normal rules yet holds extraordinary influence. No one knows if future presidents will keep this rogue superpower approach, but without doubt, the international order works differently now. Trump’s America has changed how countries interact, creating a system where American interests matter more than international agreement, multilateral groups lose importance, and solo actions become normal.
Singapore’s defense minister captured this change best last year: America’s image “has changed from liberator to great disruptor to a landlord seeking rent.” This progress shows more than just policy changes – it reveals America’s new global role that will affect international relations for decades, whatever president comes next.