Things Fall Apart: The Unravelling Global Order Amidst U.S. Withdrawal from Multilateralism

Two weeks ago, United States (US) President Donald Trump withdrew the country from 66 international organisations and treaties, arguing that they no longer served US interests. The move followed Executive Order 14199, issued on 4 February 2025, which directed the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the US Representative to the United Nations, to review all international organisations, treaties and conventions involving US membership, funding or support. The review was intended to identify those deemed misaligned with American interests. 

The final list comprised a wide range of United Nations (UN) and non-UN multilateral bodies spanning climate and environmental governance, energy transition, development assistance, trade and economic coordination, democracy and human rights promotion, peacebuilding and security, migration and social policy, scientific research, and regional cooperation. Most of these institutions are oriented towards global public goods, norm-setting and multilateral policy coordination, rather than direct national service delivery. 

Trump has long been sceptical of institutionalised multilateralism as a governing principle, tolerating or engaging with it only when it delivers immediate and asymmetric advantages to the United States. During his first term, he questioned many multilateral commitments but stopped short of abandoning US power altogether, instead selectively honouring obligations based on perceived national benefit. He withdrew the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on his first day in office in January 2017 and renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), culminating in the signing of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) in 2018. The USMCA introduced stricter rules of origin for automobiles, enhanced labour protections, revised dairy market access and updated dispute-resolution mechanisms. At the core of Trump’s worldview is the belief that multilateral institutions constrain US sovereignty, diffuse accountability and allow other states to free-ride on American power and funding. 

In his second term, Trump has further entrenched this position by steadily dismantling elements of the global order built around US leadership. He argues that decades of American dominance in trade, security and multilateral institutions are no longer sustainable. His objection is not to US leadership itself, but to what he perceives as other nations failing to contribute their fair share to the maintenance of these institutions. 

Trump’s “America First” approach prioritises selective, transactional engagement over long-term commitments, redefining global leadership around immediate national advantage rather than durable institutional frameworks. True to his deal-making style, he continues to pursue agreements designed primarily to advance US interests ahead of others. 

This view was echoed by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at the World Economic Forum in Davos this week, in a speech widely praised for its candour. Carney stated bluntly that the old US-led world order would not return and urged countries to pursue new alliances and greater strategic autonomy. He argued that the assumptions underpinning a stable, rules-based global system have broken down and that the world is now entering a period of rupture rather than orderly transition, shaped by intensifying great-power rivalry. Trump, speaking at the same forum, highlighted Europe’s challenges, citing immigration, government spending and global trade imbalances as factors constraining other regions. 

A case in point is Trump’s approach to Greenland. In his Davos remarks, he described Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark, as vital to both US and global security, calling for “immediate negotiations” to bring it under American control. He referred to Greenland as “our territory” and argued that the US was best positioned to defend it. While he initially threatened tariffs on European countries opposing the proposal, he later stepped back, outlining what he termed a “framework” for a future Arctic agreement with NATO leaders. 

By employing a combination of pressure tactics, including tariffs, visa restrictions, sanctions and the implicit threat of military force, Trump may still achieve his objectives. However, this approach signals a world in which the US continues to dominate, but no longer in the manner it once did. Under Trump’s leadership, global politics are likely to become more unpredictable, with alliances and international rules increasingly fragile. In many respects, it marks the end of the world as it has long been understood.