ED When America rejects international law, global order is put at risk

A 3D-printed miniature of U.S. President Donald Trump, the U.S. flag and the United Nations logo are seen in this photo illustration from Jan. 8. Reuters/Dado Ruvic

U.S. President Donald Trump has now said the quiet part out loud. Declaring “I don't need for international law,” he has openly challenged not only specific treaties and institutions, but the very idea of a rules-based global order. After threatening to take Greenland from Denmark — a fellow NATO member — by force if necessary, and after asserting that alliances themselves are merely “a matter of choice,” the president has moved from selective disengagement to outright repudiation of the norms that have underpinned international stability for decades.

The remarks, delivered in a recent interview with The New York Times, were as startling as they were revealing. Trump suggested that acquiring Greenland could justify abandoning NATO, and further claimed that he would not be constrained by international law, but only his own morality. It was an extraordinary assertion of personal authority over collective rules, implying that sovereignty, treaties and legal restraints are subordinate to the will of a single leader. That such language comes from the head of the world’s most powerful democracy should alarm not only America’s adversaries, but its allies as well.

These statements do not stand in isolation. They form part of a broader pattern of American behavior under Trump that elevates raw power over shared rules. In Venezuela, the United States has detained a foreign head of state and sought control over strategic resources. Globally, sweeping tariff threats have been used to coerce partners and rivals alike, disrupting the free trade Washington once championed. Now, international law itself is being dismissed as optional, an inconvenience rather than a foundation of legitimacy.

Equally troubling is the president’s apparent indifference to strategic restraint. Trump has shown little concern for the imminent expiration of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the last remaining nuclear arms control agreement between the United States and Russia. Should it lapse without replacement, there would be no formal brakes on a renewed arms race between the two largest nuclear powers. His comments on China were no less unsettling. Asked about the possibility of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, he remarked that he would be “very unhappy,” but that the decision ultimately belonged to President Xi Jinping. Such ambiguity can easily be read as acquiescence, weakening deterrence amid growing regional tension.

This erosion of restraint is mirrored in America’s retreat from multilateral institutions. The United States has withdrawn from or suspended participation in dozens of international bodies, including U.N. agencies it once helped create and lead. The official rationale — bias, inefficiency, unfair financial burdens — contains elements of truth. The U.N. system is imperfect, often politicized and slow to reform. But withdrawal is not reform. It is abdication.

For decades, American influence within international institutions extended far beyond its checkbook. By remaining engaged, Washington shaped agendas, set standards and embedded liberal democratic values into global governance. When the United States leaves the table, it does not freeze institutions in place; it cedes influence to others, often to powers far less committed to transparency, human rights or the rule of law. The vacuum never remains empty.

The message sent to allies is equally damaging. Multilateral institutions are not luxuries for middle and smaller powers; they are safeguards. Repeated American withdrawals, coupled with threats to abandon alliances themselves, fosters uncertainty and mistrust. A nation that urges others to respect international norms while openly flouting them undermines its own moral authority and strategic credibility.

Leadership in world affairs is not measured solely by military strength or economic scale. It rests on consistency, predictability and the willingness to accept constraints in exchange for legitimacy. Great powers do not prove their confidence by dismissing flawed systems; they prove it by staying, negotiating and reshaping those systems over time.

For countries that rely heavily on U.S. security guarantees, this turn toward unilateralism is more than mere rhetoric. It is a warning. A world in which international law is optional and alliances are transactional is one in which self-help replaces collective security. The logic of “might makes right” invites instability, arms races and conflict.

America does not grow stronger by rejecting international law or walking away from institutions it once led. Its influence does not expand in isolation, nor does its authority deepen when rules are treated as obstacles rather than commitments. History suggests the opposite: The United States shaped the world most decisively when it anchored power in law, and leadership in responsibility.

The world is now asking not whether America can act alone, but whether it still believes that leadership is worth the discipline it requires.