Why is U.S. 'wrecking ball' against global order

Editor's note: CGTN's First Voice provides instant commentary on breaking stories. The column clarifies emerging issues and better defines the news agenda, offering a Chinese perspective on the latest global events.

"More than 80 years after construction began, the U.S.-led post-1945 international order is now under destruction," the recently released Munich Security Report 2026 warned, labeling U.S. President Donald Trump as one of the most prominent "demolition men."

The message is clear: The country that once underwrote the system's rule is now dismantling its foundations.

Values clash across the Atlantic

For decades after 1945, postwar interactions were predictable: the U.S. provided security, and in exchange, allies aligned with American strategic priorities.

But today, unpredictability is the point.

Threats to abandon NATO partners if they fail to meet defense-spending targets, rhetoric that security guarantees are contingent on financial contributions, and the constant portrayal of partnerships as burdens are hollowing out the very logic of collective defense. What was once sold as an alliance of shared values is increasingly framed as a series of deals to be constantly renegotiated.

The Munich Security Report captures this shift with the phrase "wrecking‑ball politics." It captures a new reality in which the White House openly questions the value of NATO, walks away from treaty commitments, and treats alliances as short‑term commercial deals rather than long‑term security contracts.

Ever since U.S. Vice President JD Vance accused European allies of "suppressing free speech" and retreating from "some of its most fundamental values" at last year's Munich Security Conference, what might once have been handled behind closed doors has become a public clash, exposing differences over democracy, rights, and the limits of state power.

This rift feeds a deeper anxiety in Europe. For decades, transatlantic ties rested on the belief that Washington and European capitals shared a core commitment to common values like democracy and the rule of law. When senior U.S. officials depict European societies as backsliding on basic freedoms, and European leaders in turn question the health of American democracy, the narrative of a coherent "West" begins to fray.

Nowhere is the erosion of trust more visible than in policy toward Russia and the Ukraine crisis. For European governments, resisting the Russian government and supporting Ukraine are vital for the continent's security architecture. But Washington's stance upsets its European allies.

"The new U.S national security strategy does not even include a section devoted to Russia … Trump and his team often display an unsettling affinity for Russian president Vladimir Putin," the report said. It also highlights what it calls an "unsettling affinity" Trump and his team often display for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Some of the Trump administration's most jarring moves have further unsettled allies. Threats to seize Greenland, for instance, were interpreted in Europe as a sign that traditional norms of respect among allies could be casually disregarded. The Munich Security Report goes further, suggesting "Most of Europe is watching the United States' descent into 'competitive authoritarianism' with rising concern or even horror, wondering how resilient U.S. democracy really is."

Weaponized rules and institutions

Alongside security and values, economic interdependence – once intended to bind nations to cooperative behavior – formed another pillar of the post-1945 order. In a world where global players call for open trade, endeavor to establish institutions to govern it, and agree that deepening economic ties would encourage cooperation and reduce the temptation to settle disputes by force, the U.S. under Trump is leveraging that interdependence as a tool of coercion.

Tariffs, sweeping sanctions, and export bans have become instruments of domestic politics as much as foreign policy, deployed and threatened in ways that seem ad hoc rather than rule-based. For allies and adversaries alike, the message is that access to the U.S. market and financial system can be weaponized on short notice.

What makes this destructive is not just that Washington uses leverage, but that it simultaneously de-legitimizes the rules that once constrained that leverage. If trade agreements, dispute settlement arrangements, and even the basic norms of predictability are portrayed as shackles rather than stabilizers, other countries have every incentive to adopt the tactic.

Labeling Trump as the "most powerful of those who take the axe to existing rules and institutions," the report warned that his actions could yield "a world shaped by transactional deals rather than principled cooperation."

Furthermore, the post-1945 framework architecture was built around institutions: the United Nations, NATO, the World Bank, the IMF, and a host of specialized bodies addressing issues ranging from human rights to arms control to climate change. These frameworks provide other states with some voices in global governance.

However, the respect for institutions as instruments of order is fast fading. From climate accords to human-rights bodies, Washington increasingly dismisses global institutions as either hostile bureaucracies or optional clubs. Withdrawals and re-entries tied to domestic electoral cycles, funding cuts, and open disdain for global courts or tribunals all convey the same lesson. These structures endure only as long as they suit Washington's needs.

For Europeans and other partners in the Indo-Pacific who relied on the U.S. to defend their interests, the painful realization has been that alliances are weakened, institutions hollowed out, and economies turned inward.

The Munich report notes that Europeans have recently had to recognize how "nearly impossible" it is to reject trade deals that clash with open-trade principles, or to condemn blatant violations of sovereignty, when they rely heavily on military assistance from a country that is itself using "coercive" tactics and cutting away at existing norms.

For now, the post-1945 order faces a harsh reality: treaties remain in force, institutions continue to meet, and trade flows persist. However, beneath the surface, the foundations are being eroded. In this context, the survival of any rules-based order depends less on stirring speeches from Washington and more on whether other actors are willing and able to preserve what remains. Powers in Europe and Asia, as well as emerging players in other regions, may seek to assume greater responsibility: defending open trade, supporting international law, and stabilizing fragile institutions.

The defining question of the coming years is therefore not only what the United States chooses to do, but whether the rest of the world can craft a degree of order despite, rather than under, American leadership.

The Munich Security Report 2026 makes clear that time is running short. Whether anything coherent can be built from the rubble depends on decisions now being made not only in Washington, but in capitals across the world.

The author Jianxi Liu is a Beijing-based analyst of political and international relations. With 10 years of experience in media, she writes on topics pertaining to the U.S., the EU, and the Middle East.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)