The Rise of the Multipolar World

Donald J. Trump’s return to the White House on January 20, 2025, marks not only the resurgence of his “America First” doctrine but also a shift in global power dynamics that starkly contrasts with the world he inherited in 2017. The second Trump presidency is navigating an international order that has undergone tectonic shifts since he left office. The rise of a consolidated Sino-Russian partnership, new military alignments between Russia, Iran, and North Korea, and the rapid expansion of BRICS suggest that the unipolar world dominated by American hegemony is now a relic of the past.

As the United States recalibrates its foreign policy under Trump 2.0, a distinct realist logic appears to be emerging. The Biden-era strategy of military overextension and ideological interventions has left Ukraine devastated, Europe in economic turmoil, and American influence in decline. 

Trump’s recent executive actions and statements by his administration signal a fundamental reassessment of U.S. interests, with a renewed focus on regional dominance, economic coercion, and strategic disengagement from unwinnable conflicts.

It remains to see the pillars of Trump’s emerging foreign policy strategy, analyzes its realist underpinnings, and assesses the implications of America’s retreat from global liberal internationalism in favor of a multipolar world order.

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has largely operated under the belief that the post-Soviet world order would remain unchallenged. American foreign policy blended elements of realism and liberal internationalism, with the latter dominating interventions in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and, most recently, Ukraine. However, the second Trump administration appears to be acknowledging what many realists, including scholars like John Mearsheimer, have long argued: the liberal internationalist approach has led to strategic overreach, endless conflicts, and the erosion of American power.

Trump’s Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, recently articulated this shift in an interview with Megyn Kelly, stating that “states have always followed their interests” and that diplomacy should serve as a tool to manage conflicts rather than to promote ideological values. Rubio’s remarks underscore a return to classical realism—where national interests, power politics, and spheres of influence define the global order.

Perhaps the most significant acknowledgment in Rubio’s interview is the recognition that the “unipolar moment” following the Cold War was an anomaly. Instead, the world is now defined by three great powers—America, China, and Russia—each of which seeks to secure its respective sphere of influence. This pragmatic admission signals a major departure from previous U.S. policy, which sought to maintain global dominance at all costs.

One of the most immediate and visible consequences of this realist reorientation is America’s retreat from Ukraine. The Biden administration had framed the war as a defining battle for democracy, but the reality on the ground tells a different story. Despite years of Western support, Ukraine is losing its war against Russia, with its economy in freefall and its military struggling to sustain operations.

Trump’s approach to Ukraine mirrors historical American withdrawals from failed conflicts, such as Vietnam and Afghanistan. His administration has halted all foreign aid to Kyiv, including USAID funding, which accounted for a staggering 90% of Ukraine’s media budget. This move suggests a deliberate attempt to allow Ukraine’s Western-backed narrative of victory to collapse under its own weight.

The quiet abandonment of Ukraine signals two key shifts in U.S. policy. First, it acknowledges that American involvement in the war was a strategic miscalculation. The Biden administration’s insistence on NATO expansion and prolonged military engagement only prolonged the conflict while weakening U.S. influence in Europe. Second, by withdrawing support, Trump is forcing Europe to bear the burden of resolving the crisis—a move that aligns with his long-standing belief that NATO members must take greater responsibility for their own defense.

A core tenet of realist thought is the recognition of great powers’ spheres of influence. Unlike liberal internationalists, who advocate for a rules-based global order rooted in democratic values, realists accept that major powers will assert control over their regional peripheries. Trump’s early actions suggest a clear effort to reassert U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere while acknowledging the influence of rival powers elsewhere. His administration’s focus on reclaiming strategic assets—such as the Panama Canal and Greenland—demonstrates a renewed commitment to the Monroe Doctrine, which has historically served as a foundation for American hegemony in the Americas.

Moreover, the pressure on Canada, Mexico, and Colombia through trade tariffs and economic coercion signals a broader strategy to reinforce U.S. dominance in its immediate neighborhood. This shift suggests that while Trump may be willing to reduce American commitments in Europe and parts of Asia, he remains committed to maintaining regional supremacy in the Western Hemisphere.

• Will European powers accept America’s retreat from Ukraine and adjust accordingly, or will they attempt to sustain their anti-Russian stance without U.S. support?

• Will Russia’s gains in Ukraine lead to further territorial ambitions, or will a new balance of power emerge between Moscow and Washington?

• How will China react to a more regionally focused America? Will it see this as an opportunity to expand its influence in the Pacific and beyond?

These uncertainties highlight the complexity of the new multipolar order and the challenges the U.S. will face in navigating it.

Trump’s economic policies have always been a defining feature of his presidency, and his second term is no exception. The continuation of tariffs against the European Union and threats of economic retaliation against Canada and Mexico reflect an aggressive economic nationalism aimed at revitalizing American industry.

The Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act had already initiated a process of deindustrialization in Europe by encouraging companies to relocate to the U.S. Trump is expected to amplify these efforts, further weakening European economies already suffering from the consequences of the Ukraine war.

However, Trump’s economic strategy extends beyond Europe. His administration is likely to use trade as a tool to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). By attempting to reclaim the Panama Canal, Trump is signaling his intent to disrupt Chinese trade networks in Latin America—an effort that will likely intensify as his administration seeks to limit Beijing’s global reach.

While Trump’s early actions suggest a clear strategic shift in Europe and the Americas, his approach to the Middle East and East Asia remains less defined. Historically, American foreign policy in the Middle East has been driven by energy security and strategic alliances, particularly with Israel and Saudi Arabia. Given that Trump has maintained foreign aid to Egypt and Israel while cutting support elsewhere, it is likely that his administration will continue prioritizing U.S. interests in the region.

East Asia presents a more complex challenge. If Trump’s administration embraces a realist framework, it is unlikely to abandon its position in the Pacific entirely. However, the extent to which the U.S. will escalate tensions with China remains uncertain. Will Trump pursue a more isolationist approach, or will he engage in selective containment to prevent Beijing from expanding its sphere of influence?

The implications of these shifts are profound. If the U.S. formally accepts a multipolar world order, it could lead to a stabilization of great power relations through mutual recognition of spheres of influence. However, Trump’s unpredictability introduces an element of chaos that makes long-term projections difficult.

A key question is whether this realist reorientation will be accompanied by strategic consistency or if, as seen in Trump’s first term, decision-making will remain erratic. If Trump adheres to a coherent realist strategy, we may witness a global landscape where major powers establish clearer boundaries of influence, reducing the likelihood of direct conflicts. On the other hand, if his foreign policy continues to be driven by impulse, uncertainty and instability could remain dominant features of the international system.

Trump’s second term is poised to redefine American foreign policy, shifting from liberal internationalist interventionism to a realist framework centered on national interests and regional hegemony. The abandonment of Ukraine, economic coercion against allies and rivals alike, and the reassertion of spheres of influence all point to a fundamental transformation in U.S. strategy.

However, as history has shown, Trump’s leadership is often marked by unpredictability. While a return to realism appears to be the guiding principle, the chaotic nature of his decision-making leaves room for sudden and radical shifts. The world is entering a new era of multipolar competition, where the balance of power is being renegotiated. Whether this leads to greater stability or increased conflict remains to be seen. One thing is certain: the unipolar moment is over, and the global order will never be the same.