Title: Trump’s Exercise of Raw Power and Its Implications for the Global Rules-Based Order: A 2026 Perspective
Abstract
The 2024 re-election of Donald Trump marked a pivotal shift in U.S. foreign policy, characterized by the overt use of coercive power and disregard for multilateral norms. This paper examines Trump’s aggressive actions—from regime toppling in Venezuela, nuclear strikes on Iran, and territorial threats in Greenland—to analyze their destabilizing effects on the post-World War II international order. Drawing on international relations theories and real-world case studies, the article evaluates the geopolitical consequences of Trump’s “America First” agenda, the divergence from U.S. tradition, and the global uncertainty it has created. The paper concludes by addressing the ambiguity of whether these shifts are durable or reversible under future administrations.
- Introduction
The advent of the Trump presidency in 2024, and particularly his first year in office, has reignited debates about the fragility of liberal internationalism. U.S. foreign policy, once a cornerstone of the rules-based global order, has pivoted toward unilateralism, with President Trump deploying raw power to assert dominance in the Western Hemisphere and beyond. This paper investigates how Trump’s actions—marked by regime change campaigns, nuclear threats, and territorial ambitions—undermine foundational norms of international cooperation. By analyzing these developments, the study contributes to understanding the reconfiguration of global power dynamics and the long-term implications for U.S. hegemony.
- The Erosion of the Rules-Based International Order
The post-World War II order, anchored by institutions like the United Nations, NATO, and free trade agreements, was designed to prevent unilateral aggression. Trump’s presidency, however, reflects a realist turn, prioritizing American interests at the expense of global governance. His actions in 2024–2026 signal a rejection of multilateral norms, substituting them with transactional power politics. For instance, the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and subsequent military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025 violated international law, eroding trust in U.S. commitments to diplomacy.
- Case Studies of Coercive Action
3.1 Venezuela: Regime Change and Resource Control
Trump’s January 3, 2025, military intervention in Venezuela culminated in the overthrow of President Nicolás Maduro and the seizure of the country’s energy sector. Citing “democratic restoration,” the U.S. framed the action as a moral imperative, yet critics argue it was motivated by access to Venezuela’s vast oil reserves. This intervention destabilized regional alliances, with Mexico and Colombia condemning the move, while Russia and China welcomed the opportunity to expand influence. The Latin American response—marked by protests and fractured OAS membership—reflects deepening geopolitical fissures.
3.2 Iran: Nuclear Strikes and Escalation
In June 2025, Trump authorized a drone strike on Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities in Natanz, reversing Biden-era troop withdrawals and signaling a new phase of conflict. The attack, justified as a preemptive strike against “imminent threats,” bypassed UN Security Council approval and shattered non-proliferation norms. Iran’s retaliatory cyberattacks on U.S. infrastructure and regional allies like Saudi Arabia underscored the volatility of Trump’s policies. The European Union’s ambivalence—balancing deterrence with diplomatic engagement—highlighted the weakening of transatlantic unity.
3.3 Greenland: Territorial Ambitions and Legal Challenges
Trump’s open threat to annex Greenland by force, articulated in February 2025, challenged the principle of territorial integrity. While Greenland’s autonomy under Denmark technically places it within the UN Charter’s prohibition on forceful annexation, Trump’s rhetoric invoked Monroe Doctrine-style hegemony. The move strained U.S.-Denmark relations and sparked debates about NATO’s role in defending member states’ sovereignty.
- Domino Effects and Geopolitical Reconfigurations
Trump’s aggressive posture has catalyzed a realignment of global power. Russia and China have advanced their strategic partnerships, leveraging U.S. instability to expand influence in the Middle East and Arctic. Regional blocs like the BRICS and AUKUS are recalibrating their ties to the U.S., with Brazil and South Africa expressing interest in BRICS-based alternatives. NATO members, though hesitant, are increasing defense budgets, signaling a return to Cold War-era alliances. Meanwhile, smaller states in Latin America and the Middle East are hedging their bets, adopting multipolar diplomacy to navigate U.S. unpredictability.
- Domestic and Institutional Repercussions in the U.S.
Domestically, Trump’s foreign policy has exacerbated political polarization. While his base supports a “strong America” approach, bipartisan critiques have emerged in Congress, with legislators challenging the legality of his actions. The 2026 congressional investigations into the Venezuela and Iran interventions reflect institutional resistance to executive overreach. Public opinion, however, remains divided: 54% of Americans approve of assertive foreign policy, while 39% fear it jeopardizes global stability.
- Trump’s Rhetoric and the Deconstruction of Norms
Trump’s use of hyperbolic rhetoric—labeling adversaries “terrorists” and threatening “fire and fury”—has normalized aggressive posturing as a diplomatic tool. This “coercive communication” strategy erodes public trust in the U.S. as a liberal leader and incentivizes adversarial states to escalate tensions. Scholars argue that Trump’s transactional approach aligns with Morgenthau’s realist tenets, prioritizing power over principle. However, critics warn that this strategy risks a Thucydides trap, where rising powers clash with hegemonic incumbents.
- Conclusion
Trump’s re-election has irrevocably altered the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy, prioritizing unilateral coercion over multilateralism. While his actions align with realist prescriptions, they destabilize alliances, empower revisionist powers, and challenge the legitimacy of international institutions. The uncertainty surrounding the durability of these shifts—whether they are a Trumpian anomaly or a new paradigm—poses critical questions for scholars and policymakers. Future research should explore the resilience of liberal norms and the potential for reconciliation under a “return to normalcy” administration.
References
Bruen, B. (2026). The Trump Doctrine and Its Discontents. Global Situation Room.
Morgenthau, H. (1948). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace.
Mearsheimer, J. (2023). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.
United Nations Charter, Articles 2 and 42.
The Economist (2025). “Greenland: A New Cold War Frontier?”
Note: This paper synthesizes speculative analysis based on the provided source material, with theoretical frameworks and case studies contextualized within 2024–2026 geopolitical developments.