Trump's 2025 Return: America First Approach, Global Order

1. Trump’s 2025 Return

President Donald Trump’s return to the U.S. presidency in 2025 has largely affected the global politics. In his new term, Trump has swiftly reasserted his “America First” doctrine, reshaping U.S. foreign policy in ways that are reverberating across major world powers. Allies and adversaries alike are scrambling to respond to Washington’s abrupt policy shifts.

This article examines Trump’s new policies and actions since taking office in 2025 and analyzes their impact on the United States, NATO, Russia, China, India, and other key players. We explore changes in U.S. foreign policy under Trump, effects on global alliances, economic relations, and military strategies, and how his leadership might influence major conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war and the Gaza crisis.

Finally, we consider how Trump’s allies and opponents may respond, and what his presidency means for the future of international relations and the evolving global order.

2. America First 2.0: Trump’s New Foreign Policy in 2025

Trump’s second term has brought a clear return to the America First approach that defined his earlier presidency. In practice, this means a more unilateral and transactional style of diplomacy, skepticism toward multilateral institutions, and an emphasis on deals that visibly benefit U.S. interests.

Within weeks of inauguration, the Trump administration began reversing or revising many of its predecessor’s policies. Key features of Trump’s 2025 foreign policy include:

Bilateral Deal-Making: Trump prefers one-on-one engagements over multilateral frameworks. He has sought direct understandings with great-power leaders, aiming for “bilateral deals with other powers to secure U.S. interests.” This marks an epochal break from the traditional U.S. strategy of working through alliances and international institutions.

Pressure on Allies: The president has revived demands that U.S. allies shoulder more responsibility. Trump insists partners pay more for their defense and trade on terms favorable to the U.S., reviving complaints that allies have “taken advantage” of American support. Aides signal a shift from mere burden-sharing to outright “burden shifting,” pushing allies to increase defense spending and take the lead on regional security challenges.

Hard Line on Adversaries – and Outreach: PresidentTrump has tough rhetoric for rivals like China and Iran, yet he also voices willingness to strike grand bargains. For example, he assembled a cabinet of noted China hawks and threatened steep tariffs on Chinese goods, even as he hints at negotiating directly with Beijing. Similarly, he admires Russian President Vladimir Putin and believes he can “make a deal” to end the war in Ukraine – an approach alarming to many in Washington and Europe.

Trump’s preference for bilateral engagements has led him to court major powers individually, seeking deals that advance U.S. interests outside traditional alliance frameworks.

Retreat from Global Institutions: Consistent with his past stance, Trump has pulled back U.S. participation in various international agreements and forums. Reports indicate he may once again withdraw from agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and reduce involvement in U.N. agencies. Analysts warn that a “partial or total withdrawal of the U.S. from international organizations” would create a vacuum that rivals like China are eager to fill.

Tough Trade and Immigration Policies: Domestically, Trump’s administration has tightened immigration (including floating plans to use the military for mass deportations ) and pursued protectionist trade measures. These policies have international impact too – straining relations with neighbors and trading partners, but playing to Trump’s base with promises of economic “fairness and reciprocity.”

Trump’s actions reflect a belief that U.S. power is best exercised unilaterally. In his view, past administrations entangled America in “ridiculous wars” and unfair global deals; his mandate is to rewrite those terms. This unapologetic stance delights his supporters and some U.S. partners, but it is raising deep concerns among long-standing allies.

3. Waves in NATO and Among U.S. Allies

U.S. allies, especially in Europe, have been rattled by President Trump’s approach since 2025. During his first term, Trump openly questioned the value of NATO, at times even hinting at a U.S. withdrawal. Now in 2025, those fears have resurfaced. Trump’s well-known view is that NATO partners rely too heavily on Washington. He believes American allies “are not doing enough to provide for their own security,” effectively free-riding on U.S. defense commitments. This stance is reshaping transatlantic relations.

Pressure on NATO Spending: Trump lost no time in publicly scolding European allies to boost their military budgets. In private and at NATO meetings, U.S. officials have warned that unless Europe significantly increases defense spending, American support cannot be taken for granted. The message is blunt: NATO’s future “depends on” Europe getting serious about its own defense.

Alliance Cohesion at Risk: European leaders worry that Trump’s transactional view could erode NATO solidarity. Diplomats note that in Trump’s first term, NATO’s Secretary General managed him “masterfully” through flattery and by crediting Trump for allies’ spending hikes. It remains to be seen if such tactics will work again. With a new NATO Secretary General in office, the alliance faces a test in adapting to Trump’s demands and mercurial leadership. If U.S. commitment wavers, NATO unity could fray.

European Strategic Autonomy: In response, some European policymakers are doubling down on calls for strategic autonomy – the capacity to act independently of the U.S. Europe’s need to invest in its own defense has become urgent. Countries like France and Germany are discussing ways to reduce reliance on Washington, from boosting EU defense initiatives to exploring security cooperation with other powers. The paradox is that Trump’s pressure could either weaken NATO or spur Europe to become a more robust partner – perhaps both. Such allied solidarity is being tested by Trump’s demands in 2025 that Europeans “get serious” about defense and shoulder more of the burden.

Reassuring Some, Unsettling Others: Not all allies view Trump with alarm. Some Eastern European members, facing an aggressive Russia, cautiously appreciate his focus on military strength (as long as U.S. forces remain present). In Asia, U.S. partners like Japan and South Korea have seen continuity in American security guarantees so far, even as Trump presses them to pay more. Meanwhile, Israel has welcomed Trump’s unabashed support in context of Gaza. India also sees opportunity in Trump’s approach, which we explore below. Overall, however, the abrupt shifts and blunt rhetoric from Washington have introduced new uncertainty into alliances that were once rock-solid.

America’s closest friends are learning that under Trump, U.S. support comes with explicit price tags and conditions. Longstanding notions of partnership grounded in shared values are giving way to more transactional relations – “arms sales over assistance,” as observers note, and public prodding of allies to do more. The recalibration is jarring, and it raises a question: Can U.S. alliances endure this stress test intact, or is a fundamental realignment underway?

4. Russia and the Ukraine War: A New Direction

No area of U.S. foreign policy may be changing more dramatically under Trump 2.0 than the approach to Russia and the war in Ukraine. Trump campaigned on ending the Ukraine conflict quickly, even boasting he could do it “in 24 hours.” Since taking office, he has moved to scale back U.S. support for Kyiv – a sharp reversal from the previous administration’s stance. Trump’s views on this issue are “well known”: he wants an end to the war, he admires Putin, and he thinks U.S. allies should do more in Europe. These views are now translating into policy:

Cutting Aid to Ukraine: Within his first month, President Trump directed a freeze and review of U.S. military aid to Ukraine. Officials indicate he is likely to “drastically cut back, if not end, U.S. military assistance to Kyiv,” which under President Biden had reached unprecedented speed and scale. This has caused alarm in Ukraine, which relies heavily on U.S.-supplied weapons and funding to resist the Russian invasion.

Pushing for a Peace Deal: Trump has made it clear he is impatient to broker a deal between Moscow and Kyiv. In his view, prolonging the war is pointless and costly. However, any Trump-brokered peace would almost certainly require Ukraine to make painful concessions. Indeed, Trump’s team has signaled he would pressure Ukraine to yield significant territory in negotiations as the price of peace.

Such a deal might freeze the conflict but legitimize Russia’s occupation of large parts of eastern Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who would be asked to accept loss of sovereign territory, faces an agonizing choice.

Moscow’s Patience Rewarded?: Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to believe that time (and Trump) are on his side. After enduring sanctions and a war of attrition, the Kremlin is now testing Western unity, expecting it to erode. Trump’s “obvious aversion” to sustaining a long war in Ukraine was exactly the scenario Putin hoped for.

If U.S. support wanes, Russia could gain a strategic upper hand. Putin’s incentive to negotiate might actually diminish if he senses Ukraine’s position is collapsing without U.S. backing – or conversely, he might play along with Trump’s deal-making to secure a favorable settlement. Either way, Moscow is arguably the primary beneficiary of Trump’s new course on Ukraine.

From the perspective of NATO and neighboring countries, these developments are deeply worrying. Eastern European states fear that a “Trump peace” in Ukraine – essentially forcing Kyiv to capitulate on territory – could embolden Russia to encroach on other neighbors in the future. It might even offer Beijing a template for assertiveness in places like Taiwan or the South China Sea.

The credibility of U.S. security guarantees is on the line. If Washington is seen as abandoning an ally under attack, U.S. commitments to NATO defense (or to partners in Asia) may be called into question.

On the other hand, Trump insists that a negotiated end to the war will bring stability. He positions himself as a dealmaker who can succeed where others failed. Still, even his advisers acknowledge the “intransigence” of Putin – whose maximalist aims in Ukraine might not fit any reasonable peace plan. Trump’s personal admiration for Putin adds another twist; he seeks respect as a strong leader and will not want to appear as simply “caving to Putin.”

This suggests that despite his bold peace promises, Trump could find himself in a very difficult spot: mediating a conflict where neither side is ready to fully compromise.

In the meantime, signals from Washington have already shifted the war’s dynamics. European allies, for instance, are contemplating stepping up their aid to Ukraine to compensate for a potential U.S. drawdown. And within NATO, there is quiet discussion about how to provide Ukraine long-term security guarantees even if the U.S. role diminishes.

The stakes are extraordinarily high – for Ukraine’s survival as an independent state and for the norms of international aggression. Trump’s return has injected both uncertainty and a glimmer (however faint) of diplomatic possibility into the tragic calculus of the Ukraine war.

5. China and the Indo-Pacific: Competition Amid Opportunity

Trump’s impact on the Indo-Pacific theater is a study in contrasts. On one hand, he has revived his tough stance on China, returning to the trade-war rhetoric and confrontational policies that marked his first term. On the other hand, Trump’s retreat from multilateral leadership is seen as a strategic gift in Beijing. China, under President Xi Jinping, is watching Trump’s moves closely – and responding with a mix of caution and opportunism.

U.S.-China Tensions: Trump wasted little time in targeting China on multiple fronts. He talked of imposing tariffs up to 60% on Chinese imports and stocked his administration with China hawks. Chinese officials privately express concern that Washington’s bilateral pressure – on trade, technology, and military presence in Asia – will increase. Taiwan is a particular wildcard: while Trump rarely discusses Taiwan in depth, he has complained that Taiwan doesn’t pay enough for U.S. protection and even accused it of “ripping off” the American semiconductor industry.

His unpredictability, which he considers an asset for keeping adversaries off-balance, makes Asia nervous. Could Trump strike a “deal” with Beijing that involves concessions on Taiwan? Or conversely, might Beijing test U.S. resolve in the Western Pacific, sensing an opening? The strategic competition that Washington labels a “pacing threat” – great power rivalry with China – remains intense, and Trump shows every intention of pursuing it vigorously.

Beijing’s Opportunity: Paradoxically, Trump’s America First approach hands China a major opportunity on the world stage. If the U.S. disengages from international forums, Beijing can fill the void in global leadership. Analysts note that Trump’s likely withdrawal from or defunding of U.N. agencies, trade pacts, and climate initiatives would “create a vacuum that Beijing will be keen to exploit,” accelerating China’s push to reshape global governance in its favor.

Xi Jinping’s vision of a multipolar order – one less constrained by Western-defined rules – gets a boost when U.S. influence ebbs. Already, China is expanding initiatives like the Belt and Road, proposing alternative institutions (e.g. BRICS expansion, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank), and courting U.S. allies with economic inducements. Europe, for instance, might deepen economic ties with China if transatlantic relations sour.

Developing countries in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East may see China as a more reliable partner for investment and diplomatic support if the U.S. turns inward. In short, Trump’s posture is a double-edged sword for China: it faces tougher U.S. pressure in the bilateral arena, but gains freer rein on the multilateral stage.

India and Indo-Pacific Allies: For regional actors like India, Trump’s return presents both opportunities and challenges. India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi had a friendly rapport with Trump during his first term, and that chemistry continues. In fact, India moved quickly in 2025 to engage the new administration – Modi visited Washington just weeks after Trump’s inauguration.

New Delhi sees value in a strong partnership with the U.S., especially to balance China’s rise. At the same time, India cherishes its “multialignment” strategy – maintaining ties with all sides (including Russia) to maximize its options. Interestingly, Trump himself is now practicing a form of great-power multialignment: loosening U.S. commitments to Europe, reaching out to Putin, and even courting Xi all at once.

This creates a fluid environment in which India can thrive. “As Washington abandons allies and accommodates adversaries, New Delhi is in a sweet spot,” observes one analysis. India can leverage its importance to Washington without having to sever relations with Moscow or Beijing. Indeed, Modi’s early diplomacy with Trump was aimed at imparting stability to India’s most important relationship (the U.S.) while still keeping Russia close and dialogue open with China.

Other U.S. allies in Asia – Japan, Australia, South Korea – are likewise calibrating. They welcome a U.S. that stands firm against Chinese military expansion, but they worry if U.S. reliability in a crisis (say, defending Taiwan) might waver under a president who questions overseas commitments.

In summary, Trump’s impact in Asia is complex. The Indo-Pacific strategy initiated in prior years – which regards China as the primary strategic competitor – is largely intact at a high level. Support for initiatives like the Quad (U.S.-India-Japan-Australia) and freedom of navigation in the South China Sea continues rhetorically. But Trump’s emphasis on America First means allies must constantly reassure him of the “deals” they offer the U.S. (buying American arms, investing in the U.S., etc.).

Meanwhile, China is adapting by tightening ties with countries who feel spurned by Washington. The regional order is therefore being reshaped by a U.S. president who is at once confrontational and withdrawn – challenging China directly yet ceding ground in global leadership that China is eager to occupy.

6. The Middle East and the Gaza Crisis

The Middle East has already felt dramatic effects from Trump’s return, especially in the context of the Israel–Gaza war of 2023–2024. Trump has positioned himself as an unflinching ally of Israel, giving full-throated support to its campaign against Hamas in Gaza. At the same time, he has floated an extraordinary proposal: that the United States should essentially take control of Gaza after Hamas is defeated, rebuild it, and even “own” it long-term.

This idea – Trump’s self-described plan to turn Gaza into a peaceful “Riviera of the Middle East” – has been one of his most controversial moves so far. Its repercussions illustrate how Trump’s policies can upend conventional diplomacy. Trump’s proposal for the U.S. to take charge of Gaza’s reconstruction – turning the rubble into a “Middle East Riviera” – has drawn both praise in Israel and condemnation from much of the international community

Unwavering Support for Israel: From day one, Trump aligned firmly with Israel’s hardline approach. He has backed Israel’s military operations in Gaza without the public criticisms or calls for restraint that characterized the previous administration. In meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump offered bold ideas to solve the Gaza problem once and for all. This earned him praise in Jerusalem – Netanyahu called Trump’s willingness to rethink Gaza “remarkable.”

Israel’s government, struggling with the humanitarian fallout and international criticism of the Gaza campaign, welcomed Trump’s outside-the-box thinking.

Global Backlash: The reaction from other world powers was very different. Russia, China, Germany, and many Arab states reacted with dismay or outrage at Trump’s Gaza remarks. Moscow and Beijing warned that a U.S. takeover of Gaza would create “new suffering and new hatred” in the region.

Saudi Arabia – a regional heavyweight – rejected the proposal outright, as it conflicts with Arab consensus on Palestinian self-determination. European leaders privately questioned the legality and morality of the idea. In short, Trump’s Gaza plan opened a rift: it was cheered by Israel and a few hawks in Washington, but condemned by almost everyone else. Even some of Trump’s Republican allies in Congress expressed “confusion and skepticism” about the plan, while Democrats lambasted it.

“Take Over Gaza” – The Plan and its Problems: What exactly is Trump proposing? In a vague announcement (and subsequent comments), he suggested temporarily depopulating Gaza of its over 2 million Palestinian residents, moving them to other countries, while an international coalition rebuilds and administers Gaza’s territory.

Over time, Gaza could be repopulated and turned into a prosperous area free of Hamas. Trump touted this as a historic opportunity for peace and development. However, critics noted that forcibly relocating Gaza’s population, even temporarily, could violate international law and would amount to “ethnic cleansing,” according to human rights groups.

Trump’s aides quickly walked back some of his most extreme implications – insisting there was no plan to put U.S. “boots on the ground” or make expulsions permanent. They framed it instead as an ambitious reconstruction mission, with Gazans voluntarily moving during rebuilding. Nonetheless, the damage was done.

The notion of the U.S. administrating Gaza hearkened back to colonial-era solutions and flew in the face of decades of U.S. policy supporting a two-state solution (Israel and an independent Palestine). It also poses huge practical challenges: Who would govern Gaza? Who would secure it? Trump offered few specifics, leading many to suspect his proposal was more of a bargaining ploy or attention-grabbing gesture than a concrete plan.

Unsurprisingly, Palestinians reacted with fury and fear to Trump’s statements. Even the U.S.-backed Palestinian Authority rejected the idea, and militias vowed to resist any foreign “re-occupation” of Gaza. Meanwhile, America’s traditional European allies were put in a bind – they want to support U.S. leadership in resolving the conflict, but not under a plan that might be both unworkable and illegitimate under international law.

The Gaza episode thus encapsulates the Trump effect: dramatic, disruptive proposals that reset the conversation (Netanyahu and others now openly discuss ideas previously unthinkable), but at the cost of unity with allies and potentially inflaming adversaries.

Beyond Gaza, Trump’s broader Middle East policy is characterized by favoring authoritarian allies and hard power. He has rekindled close ties with Gulf monarchies like Saudi Arabia (which had been strained under the prior administration due to human rights concerns). In exchange, he expects them to align on isolating Iran and perhaps funding Gaza’s rehabilitation if his plan proceeds.

On Iran, Trump is reverting to maximum pressure – tightening sanctions and issuing stark warnings to Tehran against its nuclear advances or support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. The region could thus see heightened tensions if Iran tests Trump’s resolve. Conversely, some speculate Trump might attempt a bold negotiation with Iran’s leaders (much as he did with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un in his first term), but given Trump’s staunch pro-Israel stance, a breakthrough with Iran appears remote.

In sum, Trump’s Middle East foray in 2025 has been marked by unconventional ideas and polarized responses. By championing Israel’s cause so unequivocally and proposing radical solutions, he has reassured some Israeli and American constituencies that the U.S. will not “abandon” the fight against Hamas. Yet this has come at a diplomatic price, alienating partners and raising new questions about America’s role as an honest broker.

Whether Trump’s bold gambit leads to any positive resolution in Gaza, or simply further complicates an intractable conflict, remains to be seen. What is clear is that under Trump, U.S. policy in the Middle East is unpredictable – and for many, deeply unsettling.

7. Global Responses and the Future of World Order

Trump’s return to power has prompted a flurry of reactions across the international community. U.S. allies and adversaries are not simply passive recipients of Washington’s policies – they are recalibrating their own strategies in response to Trump. Here’s how some key players are responding and what it could mean for the global order:

European Union & NATO Allies: Western European leaders are striving to maintain transatlantic cooperation, but they are also hedging. France’s President Emmanuel Macron has revived calls for a “European defense” independent of U.S. whims. Germany, while increasing its military budget as Trump demands, is also quietly engaging more with China economically (a trend Trump’s pressure may accelerate).

NATO, celebrating its 75th anniversary, finds itself at a crossroads – it must either adapt to a more self-reliant model or face a potential U.S. downgrading of commitment. European diplomats are holding their breath that Trump’s more extreme ideas (like quitting NATO or cutting Baltic defense) do not materialize, and they are using every tool – flattery, persuasion, incentives – to keep the U.S. engaged.

Russia: The Kremlin is clearly pleased to see discord in NATO and ambiguity in U.S. support for Ukraine. Putin is likely to test NATO’s resolve indirectly, possibly through grey-zone tactics like cyberattacks or intimidation of smaller neighbors, calculating that Trump’s America will have limited appetite to respond.

However, Moscow is also wary: Trump’s unpredictability means Russia could miscalculate. If Putin appears too “insolent,” Trump might overreact despite his admiration for the Russian leader. For now, though, Russia benefits from a U.S. president who questions the very premises of the U.S.-led international order that Moscow has long resented.

China: Beijing is moving deftly. Publicly, Chinese officials criticize U.S. provocations (on trade, Taiwan, etc.) and condemn what they call American “hegemonism.” Privately, China’s leadership is pleased that Trump’s “withdrawal…from international organizations” gives China openings to assert leadership.

We can expect China to double down on its narrative of being the champion of globalization and stability, contrasting itself with an America that appears volatile and self-focused. At the same time, China will remain cautious not to provoke a crisis with the U.S. during Trump’s term – Beijing prefers to win by default as the U.S. pulls back, rather than trigger a direct confrontation with an unpredictable Trump.

India and Other “Swing” Powers: Many middle powers are adapting through a strategy of hedging. India is the prime example – it is warmly embracing opportunities with the U.S. (defense deals, technology partnerships) while keeping its options open with Russia and maintaining dialogue with China.

Countries like Turkey, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa are similarly non-aligned in this great-power jostling. They see a chance to assert their interests more independently as U.S. global influence is applied more selectively. However, they also face pressure to take sides on issues like Ukraine or the U.S.-China rivalry. For instance, Saudi Arabia must balance its security ties with the U.S. against its oil partnership with Russia and growing links to China. The result is a more multipolar diplomatic game, where these countries practice flexible alignment (or “multialignment”) depending on the issue.

Global South & Developing Nations: Many developing countries worry they will be overlooked under Trump’s “handful of countries first” approach. The new administration’s reduced support for development aid and democracy promotion – in line with Project 2025 blueprints – means less U.S. attention to Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia.

In response, these nations are strengthening ties with each other and with non-Western powers. We see organizations like the African Union and ASEAN seeking greater regional self-reliance. Meanwhile, China and Russia are quick to fill any void – increasing diplomatic visits, loans, and military agreements with countries that sense Washington’s focus has shifted away. This trend could erode the U.S.’s long-held influence in the Global South and contribute to an international system where U.S. leadership is no longer taken as a given.

Looking ahead, the broader implications of Trump’s foreign policy are profound. If current trajectories hold, we may witness an accelerated transition to a more fragmented global order. The post-Cold War era of U.S.-led multilateralism was already under strain; Trump’s policies in 2025 could be the tipping point that normalizes great-power spheres of influence and more fluid alliances. In this emerging order, major powers engage in pragmatic, shifting partnerships (“multialignment”) rather than fixed blocs.

International norms and institutions risk weakening as countries pursue narrow interests, making collective action on global challenges (climate change, pandemics, arms control) more difficult.

However, such an order also carries dangers: miscalculations and rivalry could increase if there is no clear anchor of stability. For example, a less cohesive NATO and emboldened Russia raise the risk of security vacuums in Europe, and a more multipolar Asia could see an arms race if U.S.-China tensions aren’t managed. Some optimists argue that Trump’s bold deal-making might defuse certain conflicts (like Ukraine) and force allies to become more self-sufficient, ultimately creating a more balanced global power distribution.

Yet the prevailing sentiment among foreign policy experts is caution – the world is entering uncharted waters with Trump at the helm of the most powerful nation.

In conclusion, Donald Trump’s return to power in 2025 is reshaping international relations in real time. His new policies have upended assumptions and forced nations to adapt quickly. The coming months and years will reveal whether Trump’s approach yields breakthroughs or breakdowns in the global arena. Will the America First doctrine undercut U.S. global leadership permanently, or will it spur a reconfiguration that leaves the world more multipolar but stable?

One thing is certain: the Trump era is testing the resilience of the international system, and the responses of allies and opponents now will set the course for the future global order. The world is watching – and bracing – as a very different chapter in diplomacy unfolds.

Sources:

Brookings Institution – Analysis of Trump’s likely foreign policy shifts brookings.edu
brookings.edu
Foreign Policy – “India Sees Opportunities as Trump Jettisons the Western Order” foreignpolicy.com
Chatham House – “Trump’s ‘America First’ will accelerate China’s push for global leadership” chathamhouse.org
Reuters – Coverage of Trump’s Gaza proposal and international reactions reuters.com
Reuters – Analysis of NATO and Ukraine war under Trump brookings.edu
Foreign Policy – “Trump Remakes the Security Order” (Second Term agenda reports) foreignpolicy.com
Brookings Institution – Expert roundtable on Trump’s reelection impacts brookings.edu
Reuters – “Trump aides defend Gaza takeover proposal but walk back some elements” reuters.com
Foreign Policy – C. Raja Mohan on U.S.-India alignment under Trump foreignpolicy.com
Chatham House – William Matthews on U.S. withdrawal from global institutions chathamhouse.org