From pax americana to power play: trump’s second term accelerates global realignment and democratic erosion

By late 2025, the U.S. National Security Strategy publicly acknowledged the end of the unipolar U.S.-led global order, recognizing the rise of a multipolar world defined by competing spheres of influence and a new 'Concert of Great Powers'—notably the proposed 'C5' grouping set to supplant the G7. This shift coincided with a marked U.S. foreign policy pivot toward isolationism and offshore balancing, retreating from traditional transatlantic partnerships and focusing instead on hemispheric dominance, which unsettled Europe amid fears of becoming a geopolitical battleground between Washington and Moscow.

China and Russia have strategically undermined key international institutions like the WTO and the UN, with Russia’s vetoes on Ukraine and China’s on the Rohingya crisis signaling the erosion of global governance frameworks. Both powers pursue expansive ambitions—Putin aiming to arbitrate European politics beyond Ukraine’s borders, and Xi Jinping seeking to supplant the U.S. as the foundational global power—forcing the U.S. to contemplate a more assertive strategy to counter these unlimited aims. Meanwhile, Chinese foreign policy discourse in early 2026 reflects a nuanced recalibration, weighing potential strategic accommodation with the U.S. alongside leveraging trade and neighborhood diplomacy, especially through initiatives like the Hainan opening.

The multipolar transition accelerated into 2026 as U.S. hegemony, particularly its financial dominance, began unraveling under strategic retrenchment and unsustainable debt, prompting allies and middle powers such as Canada, the EU, Indonesia, Brazil, and South Africa to hedge by diversifying trade and forging managed agreements with China ahead of any U.S.-China framework. This fracturing of the U.S.-Western bloc created openings for China to position itself as a more attentive partner in regions like Southeast Asia, challenging U.S. global leadership amid persistent instability and mistrust in U.S.-China relations under the Trump administration.

Despite the erosion of Pax Americana and the rise of regional blocs, the global order’s transformation remains gradual and complex. Europe, while pursuing strategic autonomy and engaging rivals like Iran, still relies heavily on U.S. security guarantees, as evidenced by interventions to maintain U.S. military facilities such as Diego Garcia. Analysts describe the emerging system as a multipolar stalemate where one superpower defends supremacy while multiple strong powers seek strength, necessitating trilateral cooperation—especially between the U.S., China, and Europe—in areas like development finance and AI risk-sharing. This evolving order blends remnants of liberal internationalism with realist constraints, exemplified by regional trade agreements like RCEP and CPTPP sustaining global governance amid shifting power dynamics.

By early 2026, the United States was engulfed in a profound political revolution under President Trump, whose second term was marked by an unprecedented dismantling of institutional checks and an aggressive expansion of executive power. As Ian Bremmer observed, this 'political revolution' fundamentally transformed the U.S. political system and its global role, with Trump showing little inclination to moderate despite pushback, especially in domestic politics and security where American power remains asymmetric. This era has seen an erosion of democratic norms and public trust, with fears of the U.S. sliding toward an imperial presidency fueled by an open assault on truth and governance capacity.

Elite corruption and the politicization of key institutions have severely undermined U.S. democratic legitimacy, as visible and unpunished misconduct in federal law enforcement, high finance, and the presidency erodes foundational myths of impartial rule of law and meritocracy. The Epstein case exemplifies this accountability theater, where despite broad elite involvement, prosecutions were minimal, creating an epistemic trap that accelerates legitimacy failure and risks fracturing domestic cohesion. This systemic self-dealing is not isolated to the U.S. but mirrors a broader crisis among Western powers, with corruption serving as both a symptom and tool of authoritarianism, shifting government benefits away from ordinary Americans to the president’s inner circle.

The Trump administration’s governance style has increasingly embraced fear-based rhetoric and militarized state power, normalizing extraordinary measures and eroding civil liberties in exchange for perceived security. From the January 3, 2026 military operation in Venezuela aimed at imperial extraction without American casualties, to the hyper-militarized immigration enforcement funded at $170.1 billion—the highest ever for a federal law enforcement agency—this approach exploits psychological predispositions to authoritarianism. Concurrently, the administration’s framing of multilateral institutions as conspiratorial threats has heightened public anxiety, reshaping American political culture around skepticism of cooperation and acceptance of diminished democratic norms.

Despite the authoritarian drift, pockets of resistance persist within state and local governments, independent media, civil society, and courts, complicating the narrative of democratic erosion. However, the broader political instability is the culmination of decades-long conservative legal and policy infrastructure, including the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation, with Trump acting as the delivery mechanism for this coordinated plan. This infrastructure has facilitated targeted attacks on Black political and economic power through gerrymandering, mass federal layoffs disproportionately affecting Black workers, and rollbacks of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, further weakening governance capacity and democratic legitimacy.

By early 2026, Trump’s foreign policy under his second term evolved into a more aggressive and less constrained exercise of presidential power, marked by a transactional and extractive approach that undermined traditional alliances and global norms. His 19th-century 'spheres of influence' mindset prioritized control over territories within the U.S. domain, straining NATO and other partnerships as he demanded allies like Gulf states protect their own shipping lanes while threatening consequences for non-compliance. This approach, far from mutual benefit, resembled extraction rather than transaction, as Trump 'squeezed' allies and partners without reciprocal gains, accelerating global instability and eroding U.S. credibility on the world stage.

Trump’s unpredictable rhetoric and combative style further destabilized diplomatic relations, exemplified by contradictory statements on Iran’s defeat and dismissals of credible reports as 'AI-generated' fakes, which sowed confusion and undermined U.S. trustworthiness. His public attacks on NATO allies, including threats to withdraw unilaterally despite congressional constraints, and his divide-and-conquer tactics targeting both domestic institutions and major corporations like Harley Davidson and Coca Cola, deepened fractures within alliances and diminished America’s standing. As a result, democratic publics in Canada, Germany, and Britain increasingly viewed China as a more reliable partner, highlighting the tangible damage to U.S. global leadership.

Trump’s 2024 Beijing visit and 2026 state trip to China epitomized his transactional and extractive diplomacy, prioritizing personal and business interests over strategic alliances and principles. Accompanied by billionaire family members and CEOs seeking deals rather than China experts or democracy advocates, Trump openly flouted longstanding commitments, such as threatening to discuss arms sales to Taiwan in violation of the 1982 'Second of the Six Assurances.' Xi Jinping’s refusal to personally greet Trump symbolized the diminished respect and U.S. standing, while China capitalized on this vacuum by expanding influence through increased funding to global institutions like the WHO and dominating critical industries such as solar panels and electric vehicles.

Domestically, Trump’s politicization of government institutions and erosion of checks and balances fostered corruption and undermined democratic legitimacy, which in turn weakened U.S. moral authority abroad. The Department of Justice’s targeting of political enemies and suppression of truth, combined with elite business leaders’ shift from critics to sycophants to maintain favor, reflected a broader pattern of transactionalism that prioritized personal and business gain over national interest. This internal decay accelerated the decline of U.S. credibility and leadership, effectively handing China and Russia propaganda victories that painted America as unstable, unreliable, and self-interested, thereby accelerating global instability and the erosion of the post-World War II international order.

By early 2026, U.S.-China relations had entered a complex 'bargaining' phase marked by strategic competition intertwined with cautious engagement. While China’s material strength and global leverage—especially in critical minerals and technology—have surged, its psychological readiness for global leadership lags behind, as noted by Ding Yifan and colleagues. Both nations acknowledge that trade and technology disputes have evolved into national security battlegrounds, with China leveraging export controls and rare earth minerals to challenge U.S. dominance, while the U.S. maintains export restrictions on advanced semiconductors and AI chips. This dynamic has fostered a managed rivalry, where neither side seeks full decoupling but instead pursues a transactional détente, exemplified by the 2026 Trump-Xi summit aiming for stability rather than breakthroughs amid ongoing tensions over Taiwan, AI, and trade.

Economic interdependence between the U.S. and China remains structurally resilient despite apparent declines in direct bilateral trade volumes. Analysts like Yao Yang highlight that Chinese firms have strategically shifted production to third countries to sustain exports to the U.S., preserving value-added trade even as China's share of U.S. imports fell from 20% to under 10%. Concurrently, the Trump administration has softened its stance on Chinese investment in medium-technology sectors within the U.S., balancing national security concerns with the practical benefits of attracting 'constructive foreign investment' to revive American manufacturing. However, restrictions persist in strategic industries such as electric vehicles and solar power, underscoring the delicate calibration between openness and protectionism.

The 2026 Trump-Xi summit epitomizes the nuanced interplay of competition and cautious cooperation defining current U.S.-China relations. While expectations for sweeping agreements are low, both sides seek to sustain the Busan truce and manage contentious issues like tariffs, rare earth access, and agricultural purchases. Xi Jinping’s emphasis on steering the 'giant ship of China-US relations steadily forward' reflects Beijing’s desire for a stable, low-drama engagement to avoid fresh confrontations, especially given China’s economic vulnerabilities and the symbolic significance of 2026 as a milestone year for both nations. Meanwhile, Trump’s relatively less hawkish posture within his administration presents a unique window for dialogue on technology, trade, and Taiwan, even as unresolved strategic questions and mutual suspicion temper optimism.

Despite the summit’s focus on stability, underlying systemic challenges and shifting global dynamics complicate U.S.-China relations. Both Trump and Xi arguably overestimate their national strengths amid internal weaknesses—U.S. political polarization and alliance erosion on one side, and China’s slower growth and corruption on the other. China has adeptly exploited U.S. strategic overstretch, particularly with American military focus diverted to the Middle East, enhancing its regional influence without direct confrontation. Moreover, China’s patient strategy of leveraging U.S. missteps, expanding alliances, and engaging in industrial-scale AI model theft underscores a long-term approach to outmaneuver Washington. This evolving multipolar context, combined with fluid U.S. policy under Trump and cautious diplomatic preparations, suggests that the U.S.-China relationship will continue to oscillate between rivalry and managed cooperation without clear resolution.

By early 2026, Europe and middle powers like Canada and the UK have adopted a pragmatic, realist approach toward China, balancing economic engagement and diplomatic visits despite rising tensions with the U.S. This shift is exemplified by Canada cutting tariffs on Chinese EVs and planning high-level Beijing visits, while the UK under Prime Minister Keir Starmer prepares a significant diplomatic mission amid controversy over China's mega embassy in London. Such moves reflect a strategic autonomy aimed at reducing reliance on Washington, even as China actively exploits divisions among U.S. allies through bold diplomatic messaging, like Chinese academic Sue Shojin’s provocative remarks about U.S. territorial ambitions.

Europe’s evolving stance is shaped by growing disillusionment with the U.S. under Trump 2.0, whose transactional diplomacy—highlighted by the Greenland episode—has eroded trust and left Europe in a 'humiliating yet helpless position,' as Zheng Ge notes. This has fueled a rise in far-right pragmatism within Europe, which, by focusing on domestic priorities and rejecting values-driven diplomacy, paradoxically opens avenues for improved China relations despite current EU-China tensions. However, this far-right influence also distances itself from U.S. conservatives amid conflicting 'America First' versus 'Europe First' narratives, even as electoral challenges loom.

Amid the decline of Pax Americana, middle powers including France, Canada, and others are actively forming new coalitions that seek to balance relations between the U.S. and China rather than relying solely on U.S. hegemony. France’s moves—blocking a UN resolution with Russia and China, restricting U.S. military overflights, and calling for a 'coalition of independents'—illustrate this fragmentation. Concurrently, regional trade agreements like RCEP and CPTPP, supported by middle powers across Europe, Asia, and the Global South, demonstrate efforts to sustain global governance in a multipolar world where the U.S. steps back from leadership in collective security and free trade.

Despite Europe’s pragmatic shift toward strategic autonomy and balancing ties with both the U.S. and China, internal divisions and continued dependence on U.S. security and technology constrain this transition, keeping the global power triangle closer to a 1:2 ratio rather than an equal tripartite balance. This multipolar order necessitates trilateral cooperation in areas like development finance and AI risk-sharing, where middle powers play a critical role in forming new coalitions to address gaps left by declining U.S. leadership. As Yang Jiemian and Zhang Chong emphasize, these emerging collaborations reflect a nuanced navigation of a fragmented global landscape marked by both competition and interdependence.

The 2026 Trump-Xi summit in Beijing represented a critical milestone in the evolving U.S.-China relationship, marked by a pragmatic shift toward managing rivalry rather than resolving deep-seated tensions. Despite hopes for a 'spectacular success' and symbolic significance tied to China's 15th five-year plan and the U.S. 250th anniversary, fundamental issues like technology competition, trade disputes, and espionage remained unresolved, underscoring persistent mistrust. As Zichen Wang of the USCBC noted, the summit aimed to 'steer the giant ship of China-US relations steadily forward,' emphasizing stability over dramatic breakthroughs amid a complex multipolar world.

The summit's agenda was notably broad and high-stakes, encompassing AI risks, trade deals, Taiwan’s stability, and the Iran crisis, reflecting the intricate interplay of economic and geopolitical challenges. President Trump brought a high-profile delegation of CEOs—including Elon Musk (Tesla), Tim Cook (Apple), Larry Fink (BlackRock), and Boeing's Kelly Ortberg—to underscore the commercial dimension, with Boeing eyeing a historic $50 billion deal for 500 jets. This blend of diplomacy and commerce highlighted a transactional approach to U.S.-China relations, where economic cooperation served as ballast amid strategic competition and domestic political pressures ahead of the U.S. midterms.

AI emerged as a central and sensitive topic, with both leaders acknowledging its role as a decisive theater in their rivalry. The summit featured efforts to establish formal communication channels on AI safety and security, exemplified by Nvidia’s Jensen Huang pressing for regulatory approvals of advanced H200 AI chips in China. Yet, skepticism about enforceable AI arms control persisted, especially given ongoing concerns over industrial-scale theft of American AI models and chip diversion operations. This cautious engagement reflected a broader pattern of 'managed competition' and 'transactional détente' aimed at maintaining stability without yielding strategic dominance.

Taiwan stood out as the most sensitive and potentially destabilizing issue, with Xi Jinping pressing for unprecedented U.S. concessions such as veto power over arms sales and formal opposition to Taiwanese independence—moves that would upend decades of U.S. policy designed to preserve peace in the Taiwan Strait. The summit’s readouts carried an admonitory tone on this front, warning the U.S. to exercise 'extra caution.' This tension, coupled with the broader geopolitical context of the Iran conflict and shifting global power dynamics favoring China, underscored the summit as a symbolic and practical test of whether the U.S. and China could manage their rivalry without sliding toward confrontation.