President Trump 2.0 will downgrade multilateralism and global partnerships under his second term.  Trump’s unusual disdain for multilateralism and cooperation is evident, but his attitude towards them will depend on the US position to blockade unwelcome policies and its ability to extort concessions. Trump won the election campaign on the manifesto of ‘Make America Great Again’ (MAGA). He argues that the foreign commitments have drained the taxpayers’ money in unwanted locations. Therefore, decreasing the United States’ abroad commitments and inward-looking policies is a cure to this. With Trump now in office, the question arises about the future of multilateralism and global partnerships. Will Trump carry on the trajectory he initiated on his first day in office? Is the US disengagement from foreign commitments a Trump anomaly, or has the US shown this trend in the past? What is the rationale behind the US withdrawal from multilateral forums under Trump 2.0 and its limitations?

Trump issued several executive orders on the first day after the inauguration, such as withdrawal from the Paris Club and World Health Organization (WHO). Trump suspended existing and upcoming foreign aid for 90 days to all countries, with waivers for Egypt and Israel. The rationale behind all these executive orders is to assess the alignment of multilateral institutions and partnerships with the US foreign policy. The early days of Trump’s presidency manifested that he would act on the promise of “Make America Great Again (MAGA)” by decreasing foreign commitments.

The America First Institute and Project 2025 have identified several institutions in their document, recommending that the U.S. reevaluate its membership in these multilateral organizations to determine whether they align with U.S. national interests. However, the question arises: To what extent will the US disengage from multilateral institutions and commitments? Is the US withdrawal from multilateralism a Trump anomaly or a strategically calculated decision? The US has an ambivalent attitude towards multilateral institutions. It has withdrawn from multilateral forums before. The League of Nations was the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson, but the US did not join it. Consequently, it was ineffective in maintaining international peace and security. More examples of the US withdrawal include the withdrawal of the United States from the International Labour Organization (ILO) under Jimmy Carter, the withdrawal of the US from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) under Ronald Reagen. It also withdrew under Bill Clinton from the United National Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). Therefore, Trump’s foreign policy of reducing foreign commitments is neither a novel phenomenon nor an irrational foreign policy. It represents strategically calculated moves to preserve the US national interest.

Trump dealt with the multilateral institutions under his first presidency in three ways. First, the United States relied only on the criticism of the multilateral institutions, where the United States held a strong position. It aimed to extort concessions, through leveraging its strong position. For example, the NATO countries increased defense spending when Trump blamed them for undue defense burden on the US. Second, the US retained its membership, provided it had the opportunity for blockade. This prevented the multilateral institutions from adopting unwelcoming policies. For example, the US blocked the WTO’s dispute settlement procedures to prevent its adjudication of Trump’s protectionist policies. Third are the multilateral institutions where the US does not wield considerable influence to prevent unwelcome policies. Trump 1.0 responded by terminating their membership in such multilateral institutions and partnerships. For example, the US has again withdrawn from the Paris Agreement since it does not hold considerable leverage to blockade its unwelcome policies.

Trump’s first presidency and early days in the White House reinforce the thesis that Trump has an unusual disdain for multilateral institutions and global partnerships. He has little regard for the so-called ‘rules-based order.’ In Congress, he controls the House of Representatives and the Senate. Therefore, he is anticipated to double down on his efforts to reduce foreign commitments and adopt inward-looking policies. It is to be seen how Trump will prevent China, its peer competitor, from dominating these multilateral institutions. Trump’s distrust for all can erode its global standing among allies and competitors. Hence, it is left to be seen how Trump will balance its international standing, containment of China, and disengagement from multilateral institutions and global partnerships.