Trump stirs talk of ‘new world order’ as leaders signal shifting global alliances

Trump’s Foreign Policy Shifts: Personal Diplomacy Replaces Rules-Based Order

President Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy continues to upend traditional diplomatic norms, replacing decades of established international protocols with a system that critics say revolves around his personal relationships and momentary impulses.

In a series of diplomatic confrontations over the past week, Trump demonstrated how quickly alliances can shift based on perceived slights. Offended by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s increasingly assertive stance toward the United States, Trump rescinded Canada’s invitation to join his Board of Peace—an organization initially formed to maintain ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas conflict but which some Western allies now view with suspicion as a potential rival to the United Nations.

Trump’s unpredictable diplomatic style was further displayed at the World Economic Forum, where he mentioned imposing tariffs on Switzerland because its leader “rubbed me the wrong way” during a phone call, though he later reduced these penalties. In another contentious move, Trump pressured Denmark over Greenland, telling them to “say yes” to U.S. control of the territory, adding ominously, “or you can say no and we will remember”—a statement that raised concerns about NATO alliance stability.

These incidents highlight Trump’s determination to dismantle the rules-based international order that has guided U.S. foreign policy and Western relations since World War II. The president and his supporters argue this traditional approach is inefficient, overly focused on compromise, and fails to address the economic challenges faced by ordinary citizens in a rapidly changing world.

In its place, Trump is establishing a system driven largely by his personal judgments—where flattery or perceived disrespect can dramatically influence policy decisions. This approach has created significant uncertainty among America’s traditional allies.

“It may be you just had a bad telephone call with the president and now you’re going to have tariffs directed at you,” Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska noted after returning from Davos. “This lack of stability and reliability is causing what were traditionally reliable trade partners to be saying to other countries, ‘Hey, maybe you and I should talk because I’m not sure about what’s going on with the United States.'”

Trump’s governing style aligns with his 2016 Republican presidential nomination acceptance speech, where he famously declared, “I alone can fix” the nation’s problems. Now in his second term, he appears more confident than ever in this approach, which delights his base of supporters who appreciate his unapologetic “to-the-victor-goes-the-spoils” mentality.

Steve Bannon, Trump’s former adviser, recently described the president’s strategy as “maximalist,” saying Trump must continue “until you meet resistance.” “And we haven’t met any resistance,” Bannon added, referring to the lack of meaningful pushback from the Republican-controlled Congress.

However, international leaders are increasingly challenging Trump’s approach. Prime Minister Carney has emerged as a leading voice for middle powers seeking to counter U.S. influence. Speaking at Davos, Carney warned, “In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: to compete with each other for favor or to combine to create a third path with impact.”

Trump responded bluntly to Carney’s remarks: “Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements.”

Undeterred, Carney has continued to position Canada as “an example to a world at sea” while creating a potential framework for other nations navigating this new diplomatic landscape. He recently traveled to China to meet with President Xi Jinping, raising concerns that Trump’s approach may be driving allies toward deeper relationships with China.

In the UK, Prime Minister Keir Starmer sharply criticized Trump for “insulting and frankly appalling” comments questioning NATO’s support for the United States. Trump told Fox Business Network that non-U.S. NATO troops “stayed a little back, a little off the front lines” in Afghanistan, seemingly ignoring that the only invocation of NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense clause was following the 9/11 attacks on America.

Starmer pointedly mentioned the 457 British personnel who died in Afghanistan, saying he would “never forget their courage, their bravery and the sacrifice they made for their country.” Denmark, which Trump has described as “ungrateful” for U.S. protection during World War II, suffered the highest per capita death toll among coalition forces in Afghanistan.

“China’s leadership watched an American president fight with allies, insult world leaders, and engage in bizarre antics, and thought to themselves—this is nothing but good for us,” said Jake Sullivan, former national security adviser to President Joe Biden.

The Trump administration shows no signs of changing course. The Pentagon recently released a defense strategy telling allies to handle their own security, while Trump warned that China “will eat them up” regarding Canada’s diplomatic ties with Beijing.

Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, observed that Trump only backs down when countries like China “showed toughness and a resiliency,” while nations that negotiate in good faith appear to earn little of his respect—a lesson that may influence how world leaders approach the unpredictable nature of Trump’s personal diplomacy in the years ahead.