The world is undergoing a profound reset, but not with the optimism that followed major wars or the confidence that marked the rise of international institutions. It is being altered with raw ambition, transactional power and unapologetic nationalism. The idea that global challenges need collective solutions is being undermined by conflicting national interests, institutional fatigue and a growing view that international bodies are disconnected from real-world results. Globalism, once seen as the natural progression of world order, is now regarded as a barrier rather than a benefit.
In this period of change, Donald Trump's second term has not just aligned with this shift but has come to represent and accelerate it. Trump is not responding to the mauling of multilateralism. He is leading an assault against it. Trump’s perspective is based on a straightforward judgement. Multilateral institutions, in his view, have failed to prevent wars, reduce inequality, protect borders, ensure health security and uphold human rights consistently.
He asserts that they persist not because they achieve results, but because they support a permanent global bureaucracy of retired politicians, career diplomats and civil servants who move endlessly from one organisation to another, earning high salaries, enjoying tax-free incomes and travelling the world for conferences and consultations. His politics gains strength from criticising this system, and in his second term, that criticism has become a systematic strategy rather than occasional remarks.
The proposal to establish a US-led Peace Board to rebuild Gaza demonstrates this method. Presented as a practical humanitarian effort, it is actually a deliberate sidestep of the United Nations, the European Union, and all existing conflict resolution frameworks that have handled the region for decades. It signals that Washington no longer values multilateral mediation and prefers temporary arrangements under its direct control. The initiative also challenges the legitimacy of UN agencies that have traditionally worked in conflict areas, indicating they are replaceable when they do not match American priorities.
This approach has been applied consistently in other areas. Trump's withdrawal from the World Health Organization is a key example. WHO employs over 8,000 people and operates on a budget of roughly $6-7 billion across a two-year cycle. A significant portion of that funding has historically come from the US. Trump used this reliance as leverage, publicly questioning why American taxpayers should fund an organisation that issues guidelines, criticism and advisories impacting US policy without being accountable to US voters.
It was a warning to the entire United Nations system that financial dependence creates political weakness. The wider UN system shows the same structural issues. More than 40 major agencies, funds and programmes together employ about 1.8 lakh persons worldwide at an operational cost of $60 billion. Faced with Trump’s public threats, diplomatic violations and open contempt, most institutions respond with carefully-worded statements that avoid direct confrontation.
Trump’s demeanour further highlights his rejection of established norms. He openly shares private conversations with foreign leaders, ignores diplomatic confidentiality and uses public humiliation as a negotiation tool. He has casually discussed arresting the president of another country not under US jurisdiction and absorbing or controlling territories belonging to allies. The luminous feature of this moment is that Trump’s critique gains traction because multilateralism has been weakening long before his return to power. The UN Security Council has been paralysed by veto politics, unable to prevent or resolve conflicts in Syria, Ukraine or Gaza. The World Trade Organization, once the duenna of a rules-based trading system, has effectively broken down, with its dispute settlement mechanism disabled and major economies handling trade disputes through unilateral tariffs and bilateral pressure.
Organisations like Unicef and Unesco, once symbols of moral authority, are increasingly seen as politicised and peripheral. The global human rights framework has lost credibility. Conservative estimates suggest more than three hundred intergovernmental organisations operate globally. Collectively, they employ several hundred thousand people and consume well over $150 billion annually. Yet wars continue, climate goals are missed, inequality grows and humanitarian crises increase. For critics like Trump, these disconnect between spending and outcomes are the ultimate criticism.
Efforts to create alternative multilateral groups have not built confidence. The Non-Aligned Movement faded as Cold War tensions rose. SAARC became captive to regional rivalries and distrust. Brics, formed to challenge Western dominance in global finance, has mostly provided symbolism rather than substantial change. Annual summits produce headlines and declarations, but real impact stays limited. Other groups such as the G7, G20, Quad and Asean have increasingly resembled diplomatic renditions. Leaders land at scenic locations, release communiqués written in bureaucratic language and leave with little accountability for follow-through.
For officials, these forums offer career advancement and prestige. For leaders, they provide exposure and reassurance. For ordinary citizens dealing with insecurity, inflation and conflict, they deliver resolutions. Trump’s alternative is crass transactional. He aims to mount pressure on multilateral bodies financially, undermine them politically, and replace them with bilateral trade and defence agreements where American influence is dominant. This method allows for speed, clarity and control, but it also concentrates power in new ways. China and Russia have responded carefully. China continues to build influence through finance, infrastructure and currency deals, while Russia acts as a disruptor without offering a workable alternative system.
Trump’s strategy seeks to reduce China’s financial hold on developing countries by pushing them into US-centred arrangements, even if those are tougher and less flexible. At its heart, Trumpism rejects the idea that institutions create peace or stability. In this view, power does. Agreements matter only when supported by coercive strength. This perspective explains why Trump’s attack on multilateralism appeals to audiences beyond his core constituencies.
Yet, the consequences are significant. A world run purely by bilateral power dynamics risks becoming more unequal, more unstable and more open to coercion. Smaller states lose space for collective negotiation. Norms decline faster than they can be restored. Crisis response becomes improvised and unpredictable. The choice facing the world is clear. Multilateralism must reform deeply or face irrelevance. Institutions must prove their value not through history or ideals, but through clear achievements. If that does not occur, Trump’s mad method will not stay an exception. It will become a model. If multilateralism fails, it will not be because Trump destroyed it. It will be because it did not adapt to a world that no longer trusts it.
Prabhu Chawla
(prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com)
Follow him on X @PrabhuChawla