If former US President Harry Truman were to see the image of European leaders gathered anxiously and warily before Trump at the White House after his summit with Putin in Alaska, he would realize that the doctrine he founded, and the international order built on it eight decades ago has vanished beyond return.

The arrival of Europeans leaders in Washington en masse to accompany Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and the viral image of Trump and the Europeans huddled in the Oval Office speak volumes. The prevailing belief is that Washington currently is driven by President Donald Trump’s mood and his ambition to end the Russia-Ukraine war at all costs, even if it means striking a deal with Putin, who wants the international community to legitimize his swallowing of around 20% of Ukrainian territory.

From the rhetoric of world leadership, America reduces its eight decades of leadership to the language of the “deal”. Between Truman’s speech to Congress in March 1947, when he said, “If we falter in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world — and we shall surely endanger the welfare of our own nation,” and Trump telling reporters in the Oval Office in March 2025, “If they do not pay, I am not going to defend them”: the gap is expansive, stretched to the point that Washington might be perceived as “not being satisfied with its own legacy,” which it created to lead the modern international system.

From the rhetoric of world leadership, America reduces its eight decades of leadership to the language of the “deal”

The American policy that the world has known since Truman directly contradicts Washington’s policy today. There is a profound, radical shift. While Truman forged an institutional order based on alliances, collective security, free trade, and international institutions, Trump is pushing for temporary deals, tariffs, and alliances contingent upon payments. This is a scene wherein Washington is reconsidering the very rules that underpinned its hegemony. But the question is: Is this merely a temporary recourse of leadership, or is it the beginning of the collapse of American hegemony that began with Truman eight decades ago?

Today’s US policy is defined by the benefits America will reap from any action it takes. It is not the Truman Doctrine that drives the policy, but the Make America Great Again movement. Truman established American legitimacy of global leadership through rules and international institutions such as the United Nations, NATO, and the World Bank. In contrast, Trump is working hard to transform alliances into conditional deals and withdraw from international agreements. He is weakening America’s image as a “rules-based leader” and projecting it as a “short-term negotiating power.”

What Washington is doing at this stage cannot be understood in isolation from the profound birth pangs the entire international system is experiencing. America’s leadership has shifted from a consensual, institutional hegemony built by American presidents since Roosevelt to a coercive power based on trade with traditional allies. This gives Washington overwhelming tactical influence but also is slowly eroding the foundation that has made it the leader of the international order for decades.

What Washington is doing at this stage cannot be understood in isolation from the profound birth pangs the entire international system is experiencing

Some see this American line as a mere four-year recourse. Nonetheless this defies logic. The world will not wait to see whether the next president will revert to strengthening institutions and collective security or will perpetuate the policy of deals and coercive negotiations. Global confidence in American leadership has been severely shaken, and allies, who have always viewed America as a dependable ally, have seriously begun to consider other options that will mitigate the fluctuations in American policy. This is what the French president expressed in a televised address to the French, saying: “I want to believe that the United States will remain by our side, but we must be prepared for when it does not.”

The French president’s remarks are part of a broader discourse gripping European leaders, fueled by a loss of confidence in the ally who had launched the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe. Everyone is now concerned about American policy and harbors suspicions that Trump is making a deal with Russia at the expense of European security. This explains the gloom that marked the meeting between European leaders and Trump following his summit with the Russian president.

What America is pursuing now is not just a foreign policy related to its vital interests, but rather an abandonment of its role as a guarantor of the international order. History teaches that a vacuum is an incentive for others to fill it. As allies question Washington’s reliability, adversaries find an opportunity to expand. China, Russia, and the BRICS bloc are moving to reshape the financial and geopolitical order in a true test of the ability of American influence to withstand the erosion of trust at home and abroad, especially if America continues this destructive approach over decades of its international hegemony.

Trump’s foreign policy style is deeply personal, often reducing complex alliances to simpler business negotiations, where quick gains are prioritized over long-term commitments. He conducts policy with a personal mindset, reminiscent of a get-to-know-you session, where everything is said except the truth. Like Putin, the Chinese have learned how to exploit his personality. It is evident from Trump’s remarks shared with reporters that Chinese President Xi Jinping told him that China would not invade Taiwan while he is in office. Trump also told French President Emmanuel Macron during a conversation at a meeting of European leaders in the White House, “I think he (Putin) wants to make a deal for me. Do you understand? It may sound crazy.”

Europe may be most vocal in expressing its concern, but the sentiment is not limited to it. From Asia to Africa and the Middle East, allies and adversaries share a common concern: American policy has become volatile and transactional and is drifting further and further away from the norms that have given it legitimacy as a leader for decades.

From Asia to Africa and the Middle East, allies and adversaries share a common concern: American policy has become volatile

All of this leads to two main possibilities. The first: Either the world will deal with American policy with a degree of restraint over the next three years, hoping that a new president will come to power and restore its well-known historical path, thus reviving the prestige of the traditional institutions that guide this policy. This outcome may be most likely to be achieved in the short term.

The second possibility is that China, Russia, and international blocs such as BRICS will exploit the global unrest and the shake-up the confidence in American political and economic hegemony to establish new foundations for the international system based on multipolarity. This will make America a regular player among a group of players, and the world will move from unipolarity to a broader spectrum. This scenario is most likely to manifest in the medium and long term, since America will be the one destroying the first pillars of its power and hegemony in the world.

In sum, the eight decades separating Truman and Trump are so profound that leadership has shifted from responsibility to transaction as if America has voluntarily abdicated its role. Instead of engineering the international order it built, it is now demolishing it for immediate tactical gains under the pretext of “Make America Great Again.” But the reality is that Washington is slowly transforming from a rule-maker to a mere spectator of the new foundations that may be built in the future.

The question remains: What does Washington want? Are we witnessing a temporary shake-up or the first stage of the end of an empire?