The entire world should be worried about the direction in which United States President Donald Trump is steering global politics. Barely a year after his second inauguration as president, the world is edging toward a perilous regression, one that many believed had been decisively rejected in 1939, when unrestrained power plunged humanity into catastrophe. With no restraint in sight, either voluntarily or otherwise, the implication is that the world may still head for that vicious state with Trump at the helm of U.S. affairs.

Before 1939, unrestrained ambition and nationalist bravado plunged humanity into its most destructive war. It was on this basis that the world collectively decided that unchecked power was too dangerous to govern international affairs.

Consequently, drastic action was needed to avoid further wars. This resulted in the creation of a rules-based international order, anchored by the United Nations (UN) in 1945, to ensure that force would no longer be the first language of diplomacy. The UN was created to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war by promoting collective security, diplomacy and respect for international law.

Prior to the establishment of the UN was the League of Nations, which was established in 1920, following the devastation of the First World War between 1914 and 1918. The idea of the League of Nations emerged from the Treaty of Versailles. The thought of its promoters at the time was that collective security and open diplomacy could prevent another global conflict. But they were wrong. Despite its noble ambitions, the League ultimately collapsed following the commencement of World War II in 1939.

Saddened by this development, a fresh attempt was made to create an enduring body. And then came the UN. In all honesty, it was never designed to be perfect. However, it was a pragmatic response to the failure of power politics that had twice torn the world apart within three decades. Its founders understood that global stability required restraint, dialogue and collective responsibility. The UN Charter placed strict limits on the use of force and elevated diplomacy, international law and multilateral cooperation as safeguards against another descent into global conflict. The Charter rests on the principle that the use of force must be exceptional, justified, and collectively sanctioned; not unilateral, arbitrary or self-serving. When powerful states abandon these constraints, the entire system weakens, leaving smaller nations dangerously exposed.

Alongside the UN grew complementary frameworks such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), whose principle of collective defence, an attack on one is an attack on all, sought to replace fear and uncertainty with deterrence and mutual trust. Together, these institutions formed the backbone of the post-war rules-based international order.

At the core of rules-based order are that disputes would be resolved through diplomacy, arbitration or multilateral institutions, not unilateral force; that countries commit to international law such as treaties and conventions; global cooperation on trade, human rights, climate, health and security as well as the agreement that sovereignty of states must be respected, while the use of military power is highly restricted.

Unfortunately, it is this rules-based order that Donald Trump, in both rhetoric and actions, has persistently undermined. His conduct represents a sharp departure from the principles that have governed international relations for nearly eight decades. His worldview is unapologetically transactional, dismissive of multilateral institutions and deeply sceptical of shared obligations. In Trump’s framing, the world is not a community of nations bound by rules, but a hostile arena in which only strength guarantees survival.

This outlook is most evident in his language. Migrants are cast as criminals and fraudsters “invading” the United States. Allies are portrayed as opportunists exploiting American generosity. International agreements are reduced to bad deals from which the U.S. must withdraw. Such rhetoric may energise domestic political bases, but it erodes trust, undermines diplomacy and weakens the moral authority of global leadership.

Worse is Trump’s treatment of alliances. NATO’s core principle, which is that an attack on one is an attack on all, is designed to eliminate doubt and deter aggression. Trump repeatedly questioned this guarantee, suggesting that collective defence depends on financial contribution or political convenience. In international affairs, ambiguity is dangerous. History shows that when commitments become conditional, aggressors are encouraged and stability is threatened.

Trump’s approach to Venezuela further illustrates his preference for coercion over consensus. This shows his hard-power instincts. Rather than prioritising UN-led dialogue or regional diplomacy, his administration leaned heavily on sanctions, threats and the language of regime change. This approach sent a blunt message: sovereignty is negotiable, and power, not legitimacy, ultimately decides outcomes.

For countries in the Global South, this philosophy is particularly unsettling. The rules-based international system, however flawed, has provided smaller and weaker states with a degree of protection against the whims of great powers. When influential nations openly disdain those rules, it is not the powerful who suffer first, but those without the means to resist coercion.

At the heart of Trump’s foreign policy lies a stark proposition: law follows power, not the other way around. This is precisely the logic the United Nations was created to restrain. As earlier stated, the UN Charter insists that force must be exceptional, collectively sanctioned and legally justified. Therefore, abandoning these principles does not create order; it instead invites disorder.

The post-1945 international system has survived not because it is actually perfect, but because its alternatives are demonstrably worse. When might becomes right, global politics reverts to intimidation, instability and conflict. The 20th century paid a devastating price for learning this lesson.

The world now faces a choice. It can allow hard power rhetoric to destroy institutions painstakingly built from the ruins of war, or it can recommit, realistically but resolutely, to the principles of cooperation, restraint and law. History offers no comfort to those who believe strength alone guarantees peace, but warns, instead, that when consensus is abandoned, chaos is inevitable. It is time for the West and the rest of the world to insist that, while Trump goes low, the rest of the world goes high, insisting that the right things be done with or without America under Trump.