We\u2019ve all heard the critiques. The United States has never been a perfect figurehead of the rules-based international order. Remember Iraq? Washington has often had a conditional approach to multilateralism. And then there\u2019s the fact that it has attempted to overthrow foreign governments many times in the last century. The White House isn\u2019t a place for saints.<\/p>\n
Yet 2025 still felt like a new era. U.S. President Donald Trump introduced an overtly transactional outlook. He blew up the international trading system with unilateral U.S. tariffs. He withdrew the United States, again, from several international bodies. Under Trump, the United States declined to attend the annual U.N. climate summit, or COP30, in Brazil and the G-20 in South Africa. It was a far cry from the days, not so long ago, when the United States would lead the way in corralling and coaxing countries to reach lofty agreements at major global summits. Again, those were usually flawed plans, and they often failed\u2014but at least there was a public attempt at multilateralism.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
We\u2019ve all heard the critiques.<\/span> The United States has never been a perfect figurehead of the rules-based international order. Remember Iraq? Washington has often had a conditional approach to multilateralism. And then there\u2019s the fact that it has attempted to overthrow foreign governments many times in the last century. The White House isn\u2019t a place for saints.<\/p>\n Yet 2025 still felt like a new era. U.S. President Donald Trump introduced an overtly transactional outlook. He blew up the international trading system with unilateral U.S. tariffs. He withdrew the United States, again, from several international bodies. Under Trump, the United States declined to attend the annual U.N. climate summit, or COP30, in Brazil and the G-20 in South Africa. It was a far cry from the days, not so long ago, when the United States would lead the way in corralling and coaxing countries to reach lofty agreements at major global summits. Again, those were usually flawed plans, and they often failed\u2014but at least there was a public attempt at multilateralism.<\/p>\n Is Washington leaving behind a vacuum or a void? It\u2019s an important distinction. Vacuums want to be filled; voids remain empty. Judging by the G-20 and COP30 summits last November, countries seem determined to fill the breach. In South Africa, for example, G-20 members reached an agreement that included debt relief for poorer countries, funding for clean energy, and better supply chains for critical minerals. There\u2019s no question that such a plan would benefit from the White House\u2019s full-throated support. But achieving progress despite U.S. obstruction could be a harbinger for order within a new world disorder.<\/p>\n American University political scientist Amitav Acharya<\/span><\/strong> has given our fuzzy moment a name: the world minus one<\/a>. Though the era of the United States\u2019 unipolar supremacy may be over, Acharya writes in his cover essay, it will be several more years before we arrive at a multipolar order. The interim period\u2014a world without the old America\u2014will be messy, chaotic, and even violent. But if countries can chart a path toward cooperation, then one day the United States may be forced to rejoin them as an equal. Acharya shows that the seeds of this future are already being planted.<\/p>\n The most consequential area for cooperation remains climate change. <\/span>Kelly Sims Gallagher<\/span><\/strong>, the dean of Tufts University\u2019s Fletcher School, has a largely hopeful prognosis here. Renewable energy generated more electricity than coal in the first half of 2025, she points out\u2014a historic first. Even if no country can quite take America\u2019s place, China will at least flood the global market with cheap green technologies, helping to stave off the worst of the climate crisis.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Rebecca Lissner<\/span><\/strong> and Erin D. Dumbacher<\/span><\/strong> see trouble ahead. The Council on Foreign Relations scholars document how U.S. allies and partners, sensing a less committed Washington, are striking nuclear deals to safeguard themselves without the United States. Could a new proliferation wave<\/a> already be upon us?<\/p>\n Our staff writer Rishi Iyengar <\/span><\/strong>reports that the United States is also stepping back from major cybersecurity convenings. What sort of impact will that have on global intelligence and security<\/a>? And does it leave a void or a vacuum? You\u2019ll have to read on to find out.<\/p>\n
\n
\n <\/span>
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/foreignpolicy.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/agrawal-ravi-signature-IMG_0008.png\")