The global power structure is undergoing a significant transformation, shifting from a unipolar system dominated by the United States to a multipolar landscape where multiple nations, including China, Russia, India, and regional entities like the European Union, exert substantial influence. This evolution challenges the traditional U.S.-centric order and necessitates a reassessment of America’s foreign policy and global governance strategies to effectively navigate the complexities of a multipolar world.

Historically, many of the international norms, institutions, and alliances we have today emerged from collective efforts by the Allied powers following World War II, with the United States later taking on the mantle of “leader of the free world” to help implement and uphold these norms. Over time, U.S. leadership contributed to creating and reinforcing structures such as the United Nations, Bretton Woods institutions, and security alliances like NATO.

However, recent developments suggest that the U.S. role is being recalibrated. Under President Donald Trump’s administration, there has been a discernible shift toward prioritizing national interests—often at the expense of traditional alliances and multilateral engagements. This approach is exemplified by a preference for bilateral negotiations over multilateral commitments, tepid support for NATO, and direct talks with adversaries like Russia that can leave longstanding allies feeling sidelined.

Furthermore, the administration’s shift toward protectionist economic policies has led to strained trade relations and cutbacks in anti-corruption efforts and foreign aid, creating vacuums that other nations (particularly China) are eager to fill.

Critics of “America First” argue that the global economy now functions through highly integrated “ecosystems.” In complex industries like high-tech manufacturing, automotive production, and pharmaceuticals, no single country can efficiently handle every stage of product design, sourcing, and assembly on its own. When tariffs or isolationist policies disrupt these cross-border supply chains, they can drive up costs, reduce U.S. competitiveness, and prompt other countries to seek new trade partners—diminishing American influence.

Moreover, economic “bullying” undercuts the trust that underpins global commerce. Thomas L. Friedman’s recent opinion piece highlights how strategic collaboration, rather than unilateral tariff imposition, better aligns with the realities of a multipolar world, where the U.S. must harness (rather than alienate) partners to remain at the forefront of innovation. A more open, multipolar approach can also foster diverse alliances, spread risk across multiple regions, and strengthen the U.S. position in addressing transnational challenges like climate change and pandemics. In essence, being part of shared value chains and adhering to rules-based systems can ultimately enhance American power and prosperity, rather than weaken it.

The following proposals have been put forward by various policy experts, but they may be difficult to realize given the administration’s continued “America First” stance. Nonetheless, they outline potential strategies for the U.S. to remain influential in a multipolar context:

1. Re-engage with International Institutions and Alliances

While skepticism toward multilateralism persists, some experts argue that strengthening commitments to groups like NATO and the UN helps the U.S. maintain leadership in global norms. However, given recent moves—such as proposed deals involving Ukrainian minerals, the Panama Canal, Greenland, and Canada—there is little indication the administration will reverse course.

2. Promote Economic Diplomacy with Caution

Advocates of a more traditional approach suggest seeking fair and reciprocal trade agreements and remaining open to rejoining frameworks like the CPTPP. Yet, the current administration’s emphasis on protectionism and transactional deals makes such initiatives uncertain.

3. Recommit to Anti-Corruption and Transparency

Restoring global confidence in U.S. leadership could involve reviving anti-corruption efforts and promoting the rule of law internationally. Still, funding cuts and reduced foreign aid raise doubts about the likelihood of a broad return to such programs.

While numerous policy thinkers advocate a more collaborative, globally engaged U.S. foreign policy, the reality of the Trump administration’s track record and proposed initiatives—ranging from large-scale acquisitions to transactional deals—raises questions about the near-term feasibility of these recommendations.

Irrespective, it must be mentioned that maintaining an adaptive policy toolkit—one that acknowledges both shifting realities and enduring values—remains essential if the U.S. is to continue shaping global governance in the long run. Balancing national interests with a degree of global responsibility could allow the U.S. to shape, rather than be shaped by, the evolving power dynamics.

Engagement Resources