The United States has long been heralded as the architect of the liberal, rules-based international order (LIO), a system designed to promote peace, security, and cooperation among nations. Emerging from the ashes of World War II, the U.S. played a pivotal role in establishing institutions like the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank, which were intended to foster collective security, economic stability, and human rights. This order was built on principles of multilateralism, the rule of law, and the idea that nations, regardless of size or power, should adhere to shared norms and institutions. Yet, the U.S. has often contradicted its own ideals, particularly in its dealings with global economic institutions. Nonetheless, there is a growing concern that the U.S. has frequently wielded them as tools to advance its own economic and geopolitical interests, undermining the very principles of fairness and equity they were meant to uphold.
In a compelling article, instituDE expert Mehmet Demirbaş analyzed the United States' growing caution and skepticism toward international organizations. He highlighted that this approach, initiated during the Trump administration and sustained under Biden, is particularly evident in the U.S.'s stance on key global economic institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO). Demirbaş pointed to the U.S.'s deliberate undermining of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Mechanism by blocking the appointment of new members to its Appellate Body, thereby hindering the resolution of international trade disputes. Furthermore, he argued that escalating trade wars and unilateral tariff measures reflect the U.S.'s reluctance to abide by the established rules of the international economic order. This trend, he warned, not only weakens the global free trade system but also erodes the effectiveness of international institutions.
The U.S.'s increasing caution and skepticism extend beyond international financial and economic institutions. While championing the LIO, the U.S. has often acted unilaterally, particularly in its use of force. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, justified under contested interpretations of self-defense and preemption, stands as a notorious example. This not only eroded the credibility of the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force but also set a dangerous precedent for other nations. Similarly, the U.S. has resisted accountability for human rights violations, from the severe human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay to its refusal to join the International Criminal Court (ICC), citing concerns over national sovereignty. This selective adherence to international norms has fueled accusations of hypocrisy, particularly from the Global South that sees the U.S. as imposing rules it refuses to follow.
Environmental policy further highlights this duality. While the U.S. has occasionally taken steps toward global climate leadership, such as joining the Paris Agreement under President Obama and Biden, it has also been a laggard in addressing its disproportionate contribution to global emissions. The refusal to pay reparations to developing countries suffering from climate change, despite being the largest historical emitter, underscores a broader pattern of prioritizing national interests over global responsibilities.
The Trump administration amplified these contradictions, openly rejecting multilateralism and embracing a transactional approach to foreign policy. Trump’s disdain for international institutions, from the World Health Organization to the ICC, and his reliance on unilateral actions—such as imposing tariffs and withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris Agreement —further weakened the LIO. His administration’s rhetoric and actions give weight to the claims that the U.S. has often viewed the international order not as a system of shared governance, but as a tool to advance its own hegemony.
Why has the U.S. undermined the order it helped build? Part of the answer lies in the tension between its ideals and its interests. As the LIO evolved, it increasingly incorporated voices and demands from weaker states, challenging U.S. dominance. Institutions like the ICC and treaties like the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) were seen as threats to U.S. sovereignty and its ability to act unilaterally. Moreover, the rise of new powers and the shifting global landscape have made the U.S. wary of constraints on its freedom of action.
The war in Gaza has passed its one-year anniversary. Israel’s military operations, launched in retaliation for Hamas’s brutal attacks on October 7 and intended to eradicate that organization, have now claimed the lives of more than 47,000 Palestinians, most of whom are civilians. Half a million Palestinians face starvation. The World Bank estimates that at least $18.5 billion worth of critical infrastructure has been lost, most of which are homes. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) have weighed in and ruled that Israel’s actions plausibly fit the definition of genocide. Similarly, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, along with several Hamas leaders. The U.S., however, has vigorously defended Israel’s actions, shielding it from international accountability. despite mounting evidence of war crimes and violations of humanitarian law.
This stance has reinforced concerns about yet another contradiction in U.S. foreign policy. While Washington has framed its support for Ukraine against Russian aggression as a defense of sovereignty, human rights, and the rules-based order, it has refused to apply the same principles to Gaza. This double standard has deeply damaged U.S. credibility, particularly in the Global South, where accusations of selective morality and Western hypocrisy are growing louder. Many argue that the U.S. is not merely eroding the legitimacy of the LIO but actively accelerating its decline by demonstrating that international rules apply only when they align with American interests.
The liberal international order is far from perfect, but it remains the best framework for addressing global challenges. If the U.S. continues to undermine it, the world risks descending into a fragmented, lawless order where might makes right. The choice is clear: the U.S. can either lead by example, embracing the rules it helped create, or watch as the order it built crumbles under the weight of its own contradictions. Given the Trump administration’s choices, practices, and statements—along with Trump’s disregard for international law and principles and his belief in a Hobbesian world—it is unrealistic to expect such leadership from the U.S. at this time.
.svg.png){kind=small}
