The Fragile World Order: Geopolitical Consequences of US Foreign Policy Weakness Under Trump’s Second Term

As President Donald Trump is about to embark upon the sixth month of his second term in office, the global strategic landscape is marked by instability, confrontation and a growing sense of Western drift. With major conflicts already raging — in Ukraine, Gaza and now between Israel and Iran — and tensions escalating over Taiwan and the South China Sea, the international system is approaching a dangerous inflection point. Critics of the Trump administration’s foreign policy warn that US disengagement, erratic diplomacy and transactional bilateralism may accelerate a collapse of the post-Cold War order, embolden revisionist powers, and fragment the system of alliances that has underpinned Western global influence for decades.

Here we explores the likely geopolitical consequences of what is widely perceived as a weakening of US global leadership during Trump’s second term — focusing on five theatres: Eastern Europe, the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific, the global economic order, and the institutions of multilateralism.

Eastern Europe: The Ukraine War Without an Anchor

Ukraine’s war against Russian aggression has, until now, been stabilised in part by bipartisan American support — financial, military and political. Under Trump, this support has wavered significantly. Statements suggesting the war is “Europe’s problem”, alongside internal Congressional deadlock over aid, have eroded U.S. credibility in Kyiv and emboldened the Kremlin.

Should Trump’s administration continue to obstruct or dilute long-term support for Ukraine, the consequences may include:

• A frozen conflict that consolidates Russian occupation and weakens Ukrainian sovereignty;

• Increased European strategic autonomy, with the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Poland accelerating independent defence initiatives outside NATO structures;

• Encouragement of Russian adventurism in Moldova or the Baltics, especially under a weakened transatlantic response;

• Chinese diplomatic expansion in the vacuum, offering pseudo-neutral peace initiatives that align with Moscow’s interests.

Ukraine’s war is more than territorial — it is emblematic of a broader struggle over the rules of sovereignty and power in the 21st century. A retreating America reshapes the battlefield far beyond Europe.

The Middle East: Old Fires Reignite

The conflict in Gaza continues to destabilise the region, but it is a direct and full-scale Israeli-Iranian confrontation — increasingly likely after mutual strikes on 13 and 14 June 2025 — that poses the gravest threat to Middle Eastern stability. Trump’s historic alignment with Israel, withdrawal from the JCPOA (the Joint Collective Plan of Action, the Obama administration-sponsored Iran nuclear non-proliferation deal) and a disdain for multilateral diplomacy, have weakened US leverage in both Tehran and Arab capitals.

Key risks in this theatre include:

• A wider regional war, drawing in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Syria, and potentially Gulf states;

• Escalating missile and drone attacks on energy infrastructure, disrupting global oil markets;

• Collapse of the Abraham Accords momentum (peace agreements between Arab states and Israel), as Arab states distance themselves from Israel amidst rising civilian casualties;

• Erosion of US credibility amongst both her allies in the region (e.g. Jordan, Egypt) and adversaries, who see Washington as too partisan to mediate;

• Russian and Chinese gains in influence across the Middle East, including arms sales and diplomatic initiatives, in the absence of US credibility.

America’s regional presence may persist in military terms, but her moral and diplomatic capital is diminishing, especially in a region driven by perception, symbolism, and memory.

The Indo-Pacific: The China Challenge Intensifies

In East Asia, a distracted or unpredictable US posture risks fuelling strategic miscalculation. Trump’s inconsistent messages on Taiwan — sometimes treating it as a bargaining chip in trade disputes — and his disdain for long-standing alliances (Japan, South Korea, Australia) could fracture deterrence architecture just as China ramps up coercion.

Potential consequences include:

• A Beijing military operation short of full invasion — such as a blockade or seizure of offshore islands — to test American resolve;

• Accelerated Chinese militarisation of the South China Sea, with increased risk of incidents involving US and allied naval vessels;

• Rising pressure on ASEAN states to choose between economic dependence on China and security ties with the United States;

• Diminished regional confidence in the “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” vision, as US commitments appear transactional.

Should a military conflict erupt over Taiwan or contested maritime zones, it would dwarf Ukraine or Gaza in economic and strategic impact, risking global financial turmoil and a collapse of semiconductor supply chains.

The Global Economy: From Trade Dispute to Economic Nationalism

Trump’s renewed threats of blanket tariffs, his withdrawal from global climate frameworks, and undermining of the WTO have triggered fears of a resurgent global trade war. A second Trump term may also target European and Asian partners in pursuit of “fairer” trade balances — a framing rooted in early 20th-century mercantilism that partly led to World War II.

Likely consequences:

• A tit-for-tat tariff spiral between the US and China, with spillovers to European car and technology sectors;

• Retaliatory moves by the EU, Japan and others, fragmenting the global trading system into blocs;

• Decline of the dollar’s diplomatic clout if trade is increasingly settled in yuan, rupees, or euros;

• Undermining of Western-led economic standards, replaced by China-centric development models and institutions.

In this environment, developing countries may find themselves choosing not between liberal democracy and authoritarianism, but between dysfunctional Western promises and pragmatic Chinese infrastructure.

Multilateral Erosion and Global Fragmentation

Trump’s scepticism of NATO, the United Nations and climate cooperation sends a broader signal: that the US may no longer wish to be the steward of the international system she helped create. While this appeals to some domestic voters, globally it invites fragmentation.

We may see:

• Further weakening of international law, as major powers ignore rulings (e.g. on occupied territories or maritime boundaries);

• Autocratic coordination — between Russia, China, Iran and others — challenging Western values at the UN and other fora;

• Emergence of regional mini-orders: security by geography rather than global principle;

• Decline in US leadership on global public goods: climate, pandemics, AI governance, non-proliferation.

America’s departure from the role of “default global leader” is not merely symbolic — it opens the door to actors with very different visions of order, legitimacy and rights.

Conclusion: A Multipolar World Without a Stabiliser

The world is not yet post-American. But under a second Trump presidency, it may become post-American-led. In such a scenario, wars multiply, trust erodes, and the very language of diplomacy — alliances, rules, deterrence — becomes harder to speak. Allies hedge. Adversaries advance.

At the same time, power does not vanish — it flows. Europe, India, Japan, and regional coalitions may rise in response. But the transition will be messy, uncertain, and dangerous.

For decades, the US has played the reluctant stabiliser of global order. If she retreats further — not from power, but from responsibility — the vacuum left behind may be filled not by peace, but by chaos in a new shape.