The American Paradox in the International System

For decades, the United States positioned itself as the guarantor of the liberal international order, acting simultaneously as rule-maker, security provider, and global policeman. Yet the second Trump presidency has revived debates over whether Washington is shifting toward a more transactional, unilateral, and selectively isolationist foreign policy. From skepticism toward alliances such as NATO, QUAD, and AUKUS to renewed tensions over global governance frameworks, America’s evolving posture raises a central paradox: Is the U.S. retreating from the world, or redefining its dominance through a more aggressive and interest-driven form of interventionism? The mixed trajectory of U.S.-China relations, shaped simultaneously by engagement and competition, constitutes another dimension of these debates from the perspective of great-power rivalry.

This session will examine how the second Trump era is reshaping the logic and legitimacy of American power in the international system. While anti-war rhetoric remains central to Trump’s discourse, recent interventions and coercive policies reveal a foreign policy still heavily reliant on pressure, deterrence, and geopolitical bargaining. The discussion will explore whether the United States is abandoning multilateral leadership or transforming it into a less institutional, more personalized, and transactional order in an era increasingly characterized by great power competition.

Discussion Themes:

  1. Is the second Trump era signaling the end of America’s role as the guarantor of the liberal international order, or simply a transformation in how U.S. power is exercised?
  2. How does the Iran war challenge the credibility of Trump’s anti-war and “America First” rhetoric?
  3. In the context of an evolving global power competition, what does China’s emergence as a parallel system-shaping actor to the United States reveal about the fragmentation of the international order and the rise of competitive bloc formation? 
  4. What do cases like Iran and Venezuela reveal about the relationship between American geopolitical ambitions, energy interests, and the future of multilateralism?