America's Temporary Abdication
A Glimpse of a Leaderless Free World
Picture an America where allies no longer trust its word, adversaries no longer take its threats seriously, and the rest of the world gradually learns to move on without it. That scenario is not hypothetical; it is already unfolding in two crucial areas: economic leadership and foreign policy.
On the economic side, inconsistency and politicization are eroding U.S. credibility. A regime of volatile tariffs, politicized monetary debates, and hostility toward immigration has begun to undermine America’s role as the anchor of the global system. Tariff policies shift erratically, producing uncertainty but not durable trade agreements.
Trump’s tariff policy has dubious legality. The statute he has used to invoke a national economic emergency and impose tariffs does not mention tariffs and was envisioned to counter foreign threats. It was not designed for president’s to impose tariffs on a whim to address trade imbalances. The arbitrariness makes it nearly impossible for businesses to plan, and it gives trade partners an incentive to simply wait out the administration rather than negotiate deals that will take years to finalize.
The administration’s hostile tone toward foreign partners only deepens the impression of unreliability. Immigration enforcement has also strained relations with allies, most visibly in the raid of a Hyundai facility in Georgia, where South Korean workers were arrested in full view of the public. Seoul is currently probing potential human-rights abuses related to the week-long detention of these workers.
Economic policy is becoming a game of wac-a-mole, with problems created by earlier interventions being met with new interventions. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, for example, has proposed declaring yet another national emergency to address rising housing prices. The independence of the Federal Reserve is now under question as the White House has publicly pressured the Fed. It has bent with rate cut pledges as inflation continues to rise, and last month Trump attempted to illegally fire another member of the board.
Since January, the dollar has declined 11% against the DXY index, which measures the dollar relative to a basket of foreign currencies. In a threat to reserve currency status, gold reserves at foreign central banks have exceeded U.S. treasuries. What this means is the purchasing power of the dollar is declining, making all of us poorer. For the first time in decades, the world has begun to question whether the United States can still provide reliable economic stewardship.
Foreign policy offers an equally troubling picture. Vladimir Putin has drawn the conclusion that American threats carry little weight. If he took them seriously, Russia would have stopped bombarding government buildings in Kyiv and would not be probing NATO air defenses with drone incursions into Polish and Romanian airspace. Each attack shows that Moscow believes it can act with impunity and that Washington will not stop it.
The contrast with 1991 is stark. Then, President George H. W. Bush organized a broad international coalition to eject Iraq from Kuwait, reaffirming the principle that borders cannot be changed by force. Today, that principle has been violated in Ukraine with no comparable U.S. response. Without firing a shot at America itself, Putin has managed to sideline the United States from its long-standing role as Europe’s offshore balancer.
This retreat has forced Europe to reconsider its own capacity for defense. The continent is not helpless: France, the UK, and Turkey each field militaries capable of standing up to Russia on their own, and Germany’s rearmament plans could soon add another heavyweight to the mix. Poland, with the largest standing army fully within Europe after Ukraine, has become a central player.
In this sense, Trump’s “madman” posture has had a positive effect: NATO allies, fearing abandonment, are boosting defense spending to levels once unthinkable. The Baltic states are fortifying borders, Poland is surging troops eastward, and Ukraine, increasingly independent of U.S. oversight as it signals a withdrawal in military support, now strikes targets within Russia at will.
For Russia, this shift carries risks. Moscow views NATO and the EU as extensions of American imperial power. But if Europe begins to act independently, the result may be a patchwork of spheres of influence, renewed rivalries, and a greater likelihood of conflict.
Multipolarity is not necessarily stability. Putin’s hope is that a multipolar world without U.S. leadership would restore Russia’s status as a “great power.” In reality, the country is trending toward the role of a glorified mine for China and India an oil, gas, and mineral supplier unable to win decisively against a single neighbor.
But the danger cannot be dismissed. NATO’s military buildup along its eastern frontier increases the chance of confrontation. Putin, facing encirclement and emboldened by the absence of decisive U.S. involvement, may see escalation as the only way to avoid strategic defeat. The result could be a Europe on edge, where the prospect of war lingers constantly.
Even if Trump loses the next election and a Democratic administration attempts to restore traditional American leadership, trust may not easily return. Allies now recognize that U.S. commitments can be reversed every four years, depending on the outcome of domestic politics. They would be prudent to hedge against the possibility of another populist disruptor rising in the near future. In the meantime, the world adapts, reorganizes, and gradually rebalances around other centers of power.
The outcome may not be a Russian victory. More likely, it will be a period of turbulence in which no single power can impose stability. Chaos, not order, may define the transition. And even if the United States seeks to reassert itself, it may find that the world has already learned to live without it.