In an in-depth analysis published on Christmas Day, media argues that the resurgence of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency in 2025 has precipitated a profound crisis in the post-World War II international legal framework, dealing what critics describe as a devastating blow to the global rules-based order that the United States once helped establish. The article contends that moves by the Trump administration have not only sidelined key international institutions and norms but actively undermined the credibility and legitimacy of international law itself, with far-reaching implications for global stability and cooperation.
According to the piece, the seismic shift began early in Trump’s term with a redefinition of U.S. foreign policy that prioritized nationalist “America First” imperatives over multilateral engagement and cooperation. At his Senate confirmation hearing, Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly dismissed the post-war global order as obsolete and even harmful to U.S. interests, branding the system of international norms and institutions as a weapon used against the United States. Rubio’s comments, the article suggests, encapsulate the ideological basis for an administration determined to jettison long-standing commitments to international law.
In practice, this ideological shift has manifested in actions seen by critics as direct assaults on the mechanisms of international justice and governance. One landmark decision was the imposition of sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC), including visa restrictions and financial penalties against officials involved in investigations of U.S. citizens and allied leaders. Experts warn such measures could dissuade cooperation and compromise the independence of international judicial bodies.
The administration has also reportedly pursued withdrawals from major international organisations, curtailed funding for United Nations agencies, and dismissed the constraints of treaties and agreements designed to manage global challenges. This retreat from multilateral frameworks, critics say, erodes the normative environment that sustains international law, encouraging other states to disregard legal obligations without fear of collective enforcement or repercussion.
More starkly, media highlights instances where U.S. military and economic power has been used in ways that appear to flout established legal norms. It cites reported U.S. military actions, including naval strikes in international waters, that have drawn condemnation from United Nations human rights officials as potential extrajudicial killings, violating settled principles of international humanitarian law. The United Nations’ human rights chief has publicly urged the U.S. to cease such strikes, underscoring the tension between U.S. actions and global legal standards.
Trade and diplomatic pressures also feature in the critique, with the article noting how the United States has used access to its market to extract concessions from allies, reshaping relationships not according to mutual legal commitments but transactional leverage. Such behaviour, the piece suggests, corrodes the perception that international law is a neutral framework for resolving disputes and regulating state behaviour.
The consequences of this dramatic shift, the article argues, are already visible: weakening alliances, emboldened authoritarian powers, and growing scepticism among smaller states about the utility of international legal regimes. Scholars and diplomats quoted in the piece express concern that the erosion of international law under Trump could usher in an era of disorder in which might, not right, defines global relations.
While defenders of the administration argue that U.S. actions reflect sovereign prerogatives and the need to prioritise national interests, critics warn that abandoning the rules-based order may deepen geopolitical instability and undermine efforts to address transnational challenges ranging from conflict to climate change.
