US influence in 2025 signifies a shift towards transactional global order, reshaping alliances and diplomacy

President Donald Trump’s impact in 2025 reflects a profound reordering of international relations, characterised by norm-breaking, economic fragmentation, and a rise in transactional diplomacy, challenging the post-Second World War order.

US President Donald Trump’s designation by several publications as one of the most influential figures of 2025 reflects more than personal prominence; it signals a profound reordering of global politics driven by norm-breaking,...

transactional diplomacy and the hollowing out of long-standing cooperative frameworks. According to the lead commentary published by Project Syndicate, Trump’s influence in 2025 is notable not for consolidating institutions or resolving crises but for “shattering norms, upending alliances, spearheading economic fragmentation and ushering in a transactional form of international politics.” The piece argues that what had been America’s role as guarantor of the post-Second World War order has been deliberately downgraded and monetised, with alliances measured by immediate returns rather than shared values or long-term strategic interest.

Trade and diplomacy have been repurposed as instruments of pressure. The Project Syndicate analysis describes US trade policy as “no longer a means of maximising the shared benefits of openness, but rather an instrument of economic and geopolitical pressure,” and says cooperative multilateral frameworks are being supplanted by narrow bilateral deals. That assessment is echoed in reporting of concrete actions across 2025: media accounts document a U.S. posture that mixes coercion with transactional bargaining, from military interventions to conditional humanitarian funding, and from aggressive economic manoeuvres to demands for institutional reform.

Several recent reports illustrate how those tendencies played out in practice. The Associated Press reported that the administration invoked a modernised Monroe Doctrine in justification of a military operation that led to the arrest of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, an intervention framed as reasserting U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere. Time’s coverage detailed accompanying plans to place Venezuelan oil assets under American control, a course that would reshape energy markets and intensify rivalry with other major powers. Other AP dispatches described a series of strikes in Venezuela and a public pledge of $2 billion in U.S. funding to U.N. humanitarian programmes coupled with a stark demand that the United Nations “adapt, shrink, or die,” underscoring a pattern of muscular intervention accompanied by conditional engagement with international institutions.

The international reaction to this style of American policymaking has varied. Some countries, the Project Syndicate piece notes, opted for adaptation over confrontation: Brazil and India are singled out as states that have neither bowed to nor directly challenged the United States, instead preserving autonomy while seeking opportunities in a disrupted order. That pragmatic posture reflects a broader recalibration among countries unwilling to rely on a U.S. security umbrella that now appears contingent and transactional.

China has been one clear beneficiary of the strategic opening. Project Syndicate highlights President Xi Jinping’s September unveiling of a Global Governance Initiative, framed around the proposition “that all countries, regardless of size, strength and wealth,” must be “equal participants, decision-makers, and beneficiaries in global governance.” According to the commentary, Beijing has combined that initiative with earlier programmes , the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative and the Global Civilisation Initiative , to present a narrative of continuity and stability rather than revolution. The Chinese pitch, the article argues, is designed to appeal particularly to the Global South: it emphasises development cooperation, support for the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the “peaceful” resolution of disputes, while insisting on respect for sovereignty and rejecting narratives of civilisational superiority.

That calculated contrast , China as a purportedly steady architect of continuity, the United States as an unpredictable transactional actor , has yielded diplomatic dividends. Project Syndicate cites as symbolic the October encounter between Mr Trump and Mr Xi at Busan, where, it says, Trump appeared prepared to shift goalposts to clinch a deal while Xi offered selective concessions yet displayed the confidence to walk away from an unfavourable bargain. Such episodes have helped reinforce perceptions in parts of the developing world that Beijing can play the role of reliable partner.

Europe, by contrast, finds itself exposed and unsettled. The lead commentary warns that Europe can no longer count on the United States to guarantee NATO commitments or reliably backstop continental security. It points to instances where the Trump administration’s posture has, according to reporting, favoured Russia in negotiations over the war in Ukraine and even sought to sow discord within the European Union , moves that have enlarged the strategic void in Europe. Yet, Project Syndicate cautions, Europe cannot simply align with a Chinese-led order: EU governments remain mindful of China’s economic and technological ties to Russia, its role in sustaining Moscow’s war effort and the broader strategic implications of deepening dependence on Beijing.

Taken together, the recent journalism and analysis sketch a world at an inflection point. The United States’ retreat from multilateral stewardship and its embrace of coercive, transactional tactics have catalysed a competitive reconfiguration of influence. According to Project Syndicate, the outcome will not be decided by the individual who commands headlines but by those states that demonstrate strategic vision and invest in institutional rule-making: the “hard work of setting the new rules of engagement,” rather than theatrical displays of power.

That process is already visible: diplomacy and institutional design are being repurposed, alliances reassessed, and development and security frameworks recalibrated to fit a multipolar, more transactional age. Whether the emerging arrangements yield greater stability or merely replace one set of dependencies with another depends on choices yet to be taken by Europe, the United States, China and the many middle powers navigating this transition. The challenge for 2026 and beyond, Project Syndicate argues, will be to turn short-term positioning into durable rules that limit coercion and preserve space for collective problem-solving.

Source: Noah Wire Services