President Trump has expressed his desire to disrupt the existing global economic framework. In just 100 days, he has made significant strides toward that objective.
He has instigated a trade conflict, canceled agreements, and hinted that the U.S. may not offer defense to Europe. Additionally, he is dismantling the governmental structures that have provided essential knowledge and expertise.
The transformations are profound. However, the global landscape remains volatile. The midterm elections in two years could weaken the Republican hold in Congress. Moreover, Trump’s presidency is set to conclude in four years. Might the next administration reverse the actions taken by Trump?
As Cardinal Michael Czerny, a close advisor to Pope Francis, remarked about the Catholic Church, “There is nothing that we have done over 2,000 years that couldn’t be rolled back.”
Similarly, this applies to global geopolitics. Even at this early stage, many historians and political experts believe that some key changes brought by Trump may be difficult to reverse.
One major issue is the diminishing trust in the United States, which took generations to build.
Ian Goldin, a professor of globalization and development at the University of Oxford, stated, “The MAGA base and JD Vance will still exist long after Trump is gone.” Regardless of who becomes president next, the factors that fueled the “Make America Great Again” initiative — increasing inequality and economic instability — persist. He noted that there remains a global concern about the possibility of “another Trump in the future.”
Consequently, allies are actively pursuing trade agreements and security partnerships that exclude the United States. Recently, the European Union and South American countries established one of the largest trade zones globally.
The Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney, suggested creating new transportation systems to enhance access to international markets beyond the U.S. Canada is also in discussions to participate in Europe’s military expansion to lessen its dependence on the United States, while Britain and the EU are finalizing a defense agreement.
“The world continues to evolve,” Mr. Goldin mentioned. Supply chains will be reorganized, new alliances will be formed, and international students, researchers, and skilled workers will seek opportunities elsewhere. “The U.S. is unlikely to quickly regain its economic standing,” he concluded.
“It’s not just the United States that has changed,” he noted. Trump’s actions are empowering autocratic leaders globally, which further undermines the rules-based international order.
Moreover, Trump’s disregard for international organizations amplifies China’s influence, which is the primary target of his economic pressure attempts.
Orville Schell, director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations at the Asia Society in New York, stated, “This creates significant opportunities for Xi Jinping and China.”
China’s leader, Mr. Xi, aims to capitalize on Trump’s protectionist stance and erratic policy shifts to position China as the champion of free trade and the new leader of the global trading landscape.
Xi’s viewpoint particularly appeals to many emerging economies in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. “China appears steady and stable compared to the United States,” observed Jonathan Czin, a fellow at the Brookings Institution’s China Center and a former senior China analyst for the CIA.
Africa exemplifies this shift. Trump has significantly reduced funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development, which provided vital food and health care to impoverished populations worldwide. Additionally, the proposed restructuring of the State Department seeks to eliminate most diplomatic missions across Africa.
In contrast, China has already made substantial investments in Africa through its Belt and Road Initiative and aims to gain control over essential minerals on the continent. Czin remarked, “It creates a vacuum that allows China to consolidate its position and control over mining rights.”
Trump’s antagonism toward allies could also weaken efforts made in recent years to prevent advanced technology from falling into China’s grasp. Strong relationships previously helped convince the Netherlands and Japan to stop exporting sophisticated semiconductor equipment to China.
Antony Hopkins, a history professor at Cambridge University, emphasized that Trump overlooks the important role China fills as an international investor and purchaser of U.S. debt. If access to the U.S. consumer market is significantly restricted for China, “you risk damaging China’s ability to invest in U.S. Treasury bonds, which would ultimately harm the U.S. itself.”
Southeast Asia finds itself caught between the United States and China. As Trump threatened, and then postponed until early July, severe tariffs on the export-driven economies of nations like Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Indonesia, China found an opportunity to strengthen its relationships there.
Lastly, the significant cuts to the federal government’s research and data collection programs jeopardize America’s scientific leadership and competitive advantage. The National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics reports that the federal government funds approximately 40% of long-term basic research crucial for the country’s technological and scientific innovations.
The administration is reducing billions of dollars in grants to universities, scientists, and researchers, hindering progress on critical issues such as environmental dangers, disease control, climate change and clean energy initiatives, computing, agriculture, defense, and artificial intelligence. Funding has also been cut for cybersecurity projects that protect vital infrastructure. Many experienced and emerging experts have lost their jobs.
Institutions fear a brain drain as both American and international researchers seek opportunities elsewhere for grants, positions, and academic liberties.
Rebuilding the networks of expertise, assistance, information, and logistical knowledge from agencies that have been dissolved or depleted won’t be swift or easy.
“This is a revolution aimed not just at altering policies but at dismantling institutions,” said Mr. Schell from the Asia Society. Even if the Democrats regain power, it’s uncertain “whether there will be a structure to revive or if it will need to be painstakingly reconstructed.”
Sometimes, key events like the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 signify an end to an era. However, it’s not always evident in real time if the pressure on a system is so severe that it can’t bounce back.
Many believed the “Nixon shock” marked a significant rupture, as noted by David Ekbladh, a history professor at Tufts University, as in 1971 President Richard Nixon ended the fixed exchange rate system and disassociated the value of the U.S. dollar from gold.
Author William Greider referred to this event as the “exact date when America’s unique dominance” of the global economy concluded. Chaos swept over global markets, leading American allies to worry that the president’s unilateral decision jeopardized the postwar cooperative framework. Yet, the broader economic order remained intact.
“The dynamics changed, but it wasn’t a revolution,” Mr. Ekbladh concluded. Discussions to open markets persisted, America’s alliances were preserved, and the Group of 10 reached a new agreement. International respect for the rule of law continued, and the United States remained widely regarded as the leader of the free world.
The current question for the United States is how strong the support is for the previous system, Mr. Ekbladh pointed out. Underlying currents of discontent with the global economy have been rising for years, and many voted for Trump because he promised to disrupt that system. “Do the American people wish for this to disappear?”
