Is Trump the End of Global Cooperation?

Whether Donald Trump signifies “the end of global cooperation” is complex, as it raises issues about the role of U.S. leadership in a globalised world and the evolving dynamics of international relations. Trump’s first term, characterised by an “America First” foreign policy, marked a shift from traditional American engagement in multilateral institutions. This approach reflected a transactional view of diplomacy, prioritising national interests over global consensus and reshaping global cooperation.

Withdrawal from Multilateral Agreements and Institutions

A hallmark of Trump’s foreign policy was his departure from major international agreements and institutions the U.S. had long supported. This includes the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Paris Climate Agreement, UNESCO, and the Iran nuclear deal. Each withdrawal signalled a reluctance to bind the U.S. to collective commitments, especially those Trump perceived as unfavourable. For instance, he argued that the Paris Climate Agreement disadvantaged American businesses, while he claimed the Iran deal failed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions effectively. 

According to the U.S. State Department, his administration also reduced funding to the United Nations, raising questions about the U.S. as a consistent partner in multilateral efforts. Critics assert that these actions weakened international cooperation on pressing issues like climate change and nuclear nonproliferation.

Trump’s decisions brought mixed reactions from global leaders. French President Emmanuel Macron and former German Chancellor Angela Merkel both expressed concern over the U.S. retreat from global commitments, suggesting it risked isolating the U.S. in future diplomatic efforts. Supporters of Trump’s approach, however, argue that these moves were essential to reducing U.S. dependency on global organisations that do not always align with American interests.

Direct Challenges to China and Trade Reconfigurations

Trump’s approach also redefined cooperation in global trade, particularly through his handling of U.S.-China relations. His administration imposed tariffs on Chinese goods worth over $360 billion, marking a significant shift from decades of economic engagement. By 2020, U.S.-China trade negotiations centred around intellectual property rights and trade deficits, impacting allied nations caught in the trade tensions. Some U.S. allies, including the European Union and Japan, faced additional tariffs, creating friction with traditional partners. Trump’s strategy highlighted the “America First” doctrine’s emphasis on economic nationalism and sought to bolster American industries.

However, these tensions created a polarised economic environment, raising concerns about cooperation on global economic issues. International Monetary Fund (IMF) data reported that trade disputes contributed to a projected global economic slowdown in 2019, amplifying calls from entities like the World Trade Organization (WTO) for nations to embrace collaborative economic policies. In contrast, Trump’s administration cited gains in U.S. manufacturing as a sign of success, arguing that the trade war helped reduce dependence on foreign goods.

Selective Diplomatic Engagements

Trump’s diplomacy often bypassed established institutions, as seen in his direct talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. As the first sitting U.S. president to visit North Korea, Trump’s approach emphasised direct communication over conventional national security channels, a departure from traditional diplomatic processes. While this high-profile engagement brought symbolic breakthroughs, critics argue that it lacked the institutional support needed for long-term progress. The Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) noted that although Trump’s approach raised global awareness of North Korea’s nuclear activities, it struggled to achieve substantial nuclear disarmament.

Trump’s summitry also sidelined national security experts, reflecting a personalised diplomacy style. Some observers, including former diplomats, saw this as weakening traditional diplomatic norms, while others believed his direct approach was a bold attempt to solve long-standing issues.

Unilateral Moves in the Middle East

Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital exemplifies his unilateral approach, which disregarded international consensus and garnered varied reactions globally. While the decision strengthened U.S.-Israel relations, it faced widespread condemnation from allies and the United Nations, which argued that the move risked inflaming regional tensions. His administration’s move to cut ties with the World Health Organisation (WHO) during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 further illustrated his willingness to sever ties with multilateral organisations perceived as ineffective or biased. The American Medical Association and leading global health experts warned that withdrawing from the WHO could hinder coordinated pandemic response efforts.

In contrast, Trump’s supporters viewed these actions as necessary for protecting U.S. interests. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed the U.S. decision on Jerusalem, and Trump’s base saw the WHO move as a stand against organisations perceived as insufficiently accountable.

Impact and Future of Global Cooperation

While Trump’s policies may not signify the “end” of global cooperation, they have signalled a shift towards transactional, interest-driven diplomacy that deprioritises multilateralism. This approach could encourage other nations to adopt similar nationalistic stances, leading to a fragmented global cooperation landscape. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) suggests that Trump’s policies reflect a broader “sovereignist” movement, where nations increasingly prioritise national interests over global frameworks.

However, climate change, pandemics, and global security remain inherently transnational, demanding collaborative responses. Future U.S. leaders may work to restore multilateral relationships and revitalise U.S. participation in global initiatives. Yet, Trump’s “America First” paradigm could have a lasting impact, reshaping U.S. alliances and the expectations of global partners, potentially ushering in an era where cooperation is more selective and pragmatic.

In conclusion, while Trump’s term did not definitively end global cooperation, it highlighted the vulnerabilities of the current international system. As nations balance sovereignty with collective responsibility, the future of cooperation will likely depend on leaders’ abilities to address both domestic priorities and global challenges in tandem.

Dr Brian Reuben is the Executive Chairman of the Sixteenth Council and Founder of the Africa Economic Summit.