Trump’s Attacks on Multilateralism Make America Weaker, Not Stronger

The G20 gathers in South Africa on November 22 and 23 for its annual leaders’ meeting—absent, of course, U.S. President Donald Trump, whose antipathy toward international collaboration is perhaps matched only by his impulse to conflate belligerence on the world stage with actual leadership. Vice President JD Vance was scheduled to represent the United States, but the president then announced that no U.S. official would attend, citing widely discredited claims that genocide is being committed against white South Africans. The Trump administration’s actions continue its pattern of abandoning opportunities for international engagement. Within the past month, the president has also skipped the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) leaders’ meeting in Korea as well as the U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP) in Brazil, forgoing opportunities that could have—and should have—been used to advance U.S. interests.

Today, as a result of the administration’s aversion toward traditional forms of cooperation—and the fact that many international institutions are in need of updates and modernization—the foundations of post-war multilateralism appear shakier than ever. The first year of the Trump administration has seen an unprecedented assault on international norms and the institutions that facilitate global cooperation, not from an entity on the outside looking to reorder global power structures but from the United States itself—in many ways the largest beneficiary of multilateralism to date. Trump’s actions have left the United States isolated on the world stage, damaged the country’s long-term security, and weakened the country’s ability to shape the future in a way that benefits American consumers, workers, and businesses.

But this does not mean that existing institutions should remain as they were decades ago. The modern economy and the challenges of the 21st century require an updated approach. That is the task for world leaders—to boldly reinvent and reform the international system without embracing the needless destruction of multilateralism touted by Trump and his far-right allies around the world. It is something that should be on the minds of everyone in South Africa this week, particularly if the Trump administration promotes a version of the future that rejects the type of cooperation that has benefited the United States—and the world—for decades.

Multilateral institutions benefit Americans and the world

In the aftermath of World War II, the United States was the world’s strongest and wealthiest power. Yet rather than dominate others, as previous hegemonic powers had done, America’s leaders made the strategic decision to create, sustain, and support multilateral institutions to reinforce the need for—and value of—global coordination. This was farsighted and effective. It meant that even if international norms and power structures reflected U.S. interests, others were represented as well; and the burden of protecting global peace and prosperity would not fall solely to the world’s largest and most dominant power. It also meant there were mechanisms in place to resolve global challenges through international cooperation, without the rapid descent into militarism and war that had defined earlier eras.

What emerged was a set of institutions, rules, and norms that, taken together, largely kept great power conflict at bay and immensely aided the security and prosperity of the United States. The international architecture that developed in the subsequent decades, from the World Trade Organization to the World Health Organization to the U.N. Human Rights Council and countless other international organizations, was an obvious reflection of American values—most notably, democracy, personal freedom, and capitalism—and a multi-pillar support system enabled the United States to work closely with partners to address challenges that might otherwise pull the American people into war, famine, or economic catastrophe, all of which defined the decades before World War II.

But herein lies the important point missed by the Trump administration: Destroying multilateral avenues of cooperation does not make the country stronger or give it a freer hand internationally; it takes away a powerful tool that can, and ought to be, used to make Americans safer, more secure, and more prosperous.

Trump’s ongoing assault on international cooperation

Systems and rules are only as strong as the investment made in their maintenance and improvement. This is what makes President Trump’s assault on multilateralism, as well as the rules and norms that have defined global collaboration for decades, so troubling. The Trump administration’s actions reflect a view that the current international system is incapable of addressing the challenges of the modern world—a view informed by the fact that, too often, global institutions such as the United Nations or World Trade Organization have failed to prevent or end conflicts, mitigate the worst effects of climate change, or address unfair competition. And yet, without multilateralism, the United States would be far less secure.

It is worth considering, for example, how destroying the world’s multilateral institutions, rather than modernizing them, would affect the safety and security of the American people. Is America safer if institutions don’t exist to mediate between warring parties in conflicts that could easily spiral out of control, pulling in great powers—as has historically been the case? Is America more secure if institutions and rules don’t exist to stop the spread of global pandemics or transnational crime? Is the average American better off if the lack of trade rules encourages companies to move production to ever cheaper locations?

Under Trump’s leadership, the United States has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement—joining only Iran, Libya, and Yemen as countries not subject to the agreement—as well as from UNESCO and the U.N. Human Rights Council. But the administration’s attacks on multilateralism go far beyond these headline departures. U.S. delegates to the International Maritime Organization, for example, worked hard to undermine global cooperation aimed at lowering the carbon intensity of international shipping. Meanwhile, at the World Health Organization, unanticipated U.S. budget cuts will make it harder to track the spread of infectious diseases that threaten the public health of Americans. And the Trump administration’s willingness to gut the World Food Program will likely end lifesaving food aid for millions, breeding the sort of hunger and famine that support extremism and conflict—again, putting American lives eventually at risk.

These multilateral organizations do not “take” from the United States; they add to its ability to shape the future in a way that makes everyone more prosperous, safe, and secure. Trump’s approach to NATO exemplifies this mistaken viewpoint. He has recast the alliance not as a shared security community but as a transactional arrangement where loyalty can be bought and deterrence is contingent on adequate payment. Yet by treating allies as clients and adversaries as negotiating partners, Trump has greatly undermined the systems that have kept Europe and the United States secure for generations.

It is hard to see how such antagonism toward international cooperation benefits the United States. Trump’s unwillingness to even participate in the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) leaders’ summit a few weeks ago did not advantage the United States; it empowered China to position itself as a bulwark of free trade, advance its global artificial intelligence (AI) agenda, and bolster its diplomatic ties with the United States’ traditional partners and allies. And as the world gathers in Belem, Brazil, this week for its annual global climate convention, not only will Trump be missing, but no high-level American official will be there either. The contours of future cooperation on climate change—a problem that affects the health, wealth, and resilience of the U.S. economy—will thus be written by others.

Trump’s trade policy is making U.S. consumers pay more while driving traditional partners away

International trade is another example of how the Trump administration’s attacks on multilateralism make the United States weaker, not stronger. The administration has raised tariffs to levels not seen in nearly a century and imposed country-specific tariffs, ignoring the principle of nondiscrimination that has defined the post-war rules-based order. The Trump administration has suggested that it only has a short time to reorient global trade norms before China’s nonmarket practices leave the United States permanently behind. Rather than strengthen America’s hand against China, the unilateralism, nationalism, and sheer belligerence of the administration’s actions have in many ways done the opposite: They have turned off the partners and allies needed to counter China’s often-predatory export practices.

American consumers are now paying higher prices for imported goods; American manufacturers are struggling with higher cost inputs; and American exporters are increasingly finding it hard to sell abroad as foreign buyers look elsewhere in opposition to the Trump administration’s actions. What is more, in the past year, the European Union has announced new trade deals with India, Indonesia, and Mercosur; the United Kingdom has announced new deals with India; and India, Japan, Korea, and Australia have all announced new efforts to support trade with China. In other words, the future of global trade is being written without—and often in direct opposition to—the United States.

Trump’s attacks on multilateralism put lives at risk—in the United States and around the world

The Trump administration’s decision to cancel nearly $5 billion in foreign aid authorized by Congress remains deeply troubling, undermining U.S. influence in the world and, more importantly, putting 14 million lives at risk of preventable deaths. Trump’s unwillingness to engage in international cooperation has ripple effects across many issues, negatively affecting countless Americans. Take, for example, his announced $107 million cut to funding for the International Labour Organization (ILO). The ILO has a long history of supporting workers’ rights, improving standards in key supply chains, and fostering dialogue between governments, employers, and workers on issues such as child labor, forced labor, and occupational safety.

The ILO does not “punish US corporate interests abroad,” as the Trump White House claimed when announcing its cuts to the organization; it creates conditions that are fairer for workers abroad and make it harder for exporters to unfairly compete with American workers by engaging in illegal or unethical behavior. Limiting the ILO’s capabilities or closing its offices in key markets of concern, not to mention other devastating cuts to international labor programs across the U.S. government, does the opposite: It makes it harder for American industry to compete and gives a free pass to the worst offenders abroad. That is why the U.S. business community responded so negatively to the Trump administration’s cuts—and not just unions or other workers’ organizations.

Trump refuses to use existing multilateral tools, even when they could make a difference for American workers, consumers, and manufacturers

China’s recent announcement of additional export controls on rare earth minerals was seen as a response to the Trump administration’s aggressive trade actions. For U.S. manufacturers, stricter export licensing and new traceability regulations could essentially cut off key inputs into defense systems, electric vehicles, and other critical supply chains. Even though China has now delayed implementation of its new policy, its potential impact is illustrative. Beijing’s new policy would have greatly affected manufacturers around the world, not just in the United States. The best, and perhaps only enduring, response to China’s proposed policy is to work collaboratively with partners and allies on a joint response that would isolate China on the world stage and build pressure on Beijing to avoid weaponizing its near-monopoly control of rare earth markets. But Trump’s antagonism toward allies and his nationalistic tendencies have left his administration without support from obvious partners, including traditional allies, which appear to be engaging China on their own.

Even more troubling: the Trump administration is ignoring an existing mechanism to bolster a coordinated, multilateral response to a supply chain emergency like the one China threatened to create with its new export control policy. The Crisis Response Network, which the United States negotiated into existence through the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) Supply Chain Agreement, is designed to do just this. Yet activating the network would require the Trump administration to utilize a tool created by the Biden administration and work in partnership with others—two things it appears unwilling to do. As a result, despite having a potential solution at its fingertips, the administration will leave American workers, consumers, and manufacturers at the mercy of China’s export controls.

Renewed multilateralism is the antidote to Trump’s toxic unilateralism

Trump seems to think that multilateralism restrains the United States from pursuing its interests on the world stage. When the Trump administration announced it was rejecting the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, for example, it did so under the guise that mere global goal-setting was “inconsistent with U.S. sovereignty and adverse to the rights and interests of Americans.” Nothing could be further from the truth, especially in a world where deeply integrated supply chains, climate change, transnational crime, migration, and global pandemics increasingly drive U.S. foreign and domestic policy. Multilateralism is not an end in itself; it is a means to an end, a way of addressing cross-border challenges in a manner that not only serves U.S. interests but delivers lasting results. Cooperating with others is not a sign of weakness; it is the way global problems are solved when individual sovereign countries are incapable of solving them through unilateral actions alone.

As a result, when world leaders gather for the annual G20 meetings in South Africa next week, they will assuredly mock the Trump administration’s declaration that climate change is a “con job,” particularly when so many countries—including the United States—are facing severe droughts, heat waves, and other unprecedented weather events. But world leaders will also greatly regret the loss of the United States as a contributor to the multilateralism needed to address the challenges faced by all; and so too should the American people.

The world appears at an inflection point with authoritarianism in the ascendancy. A functioning multilateral system is an important counterpoint to these darker impulses. But this requires a renewed commitment to international law, cooperation, and the creation of new systems to address the global challenges that will define the future. In some cases, the solution may entail simply reforming existing organizations; in others, entirely new thinking is required. New agreements, new institutions, or even new disciplines of engagement should all be on the table.

The challenge for the G20—and the world more broadly—is to avoid defending old institutions and norms that were far from perfect and instead respond to the Trump administration’s toxic unilateralism with a renewed commitment to international collaboration that directly benefits our citizens and is rightsized for the modern era. It is hard to see how migration, climate change, pandemics, deforestation, or world hunger will be addressed effectively by anything other than legitimate, meaningful cooperation across borders. And this is to say nothing of the need to regulate AI or limit the effects of social media on children. These are not zero-sum issues. Addressing them in a cooperative manner is both good for the American people and others as well. Trump’s attacks on multilateralism thus do more than undermine the rules-based order; they delegitimize tools that can make the world a better, healthier, more sustainable, and fairer place. In doing so, they make the United States weaker and less secure.

At its core, multilateralism is not about specific institutions, but rather the idea that problems affecting more than one country are best—and perhaps only—dealt with through coordination. Multilateralism is thus not about engagement in any particular body any more than it was demonstrated by previous generations in places such as the League of Nations or the Concert of Europe. Indeed, the failure of these earlier institutions to stop the next great conflict likely had less to do with the effectiveness of international coordination and more to do with the world’s failure to reform older organizations when updates were required to more accurately reflect new power structures, values, or technologies. It is a sobering thought as the eight decades between great power wars reaches one of the longest stretches in human history.