We’re in a new world disorder. No matter your politics or where you live in the world, it’s clear that the United States has altered its trajectory of the last several decades. The leaders of the world’s biggest economic and military power feel unconstrained by domestic or international law when it comes to waging war or toppling leaders of countries they deem to be a threat; they no longer wish to be responsible for Europe’s defense; and they see international trade not as a global public good but as a zero-sum game that must be won by any means necessary.
Supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump will find these shifts in policy appealing. Critics will not. The Spring 2026 issue of Foreign Policy is not designed to litigate this dispute. Nor is it trying to portray Washington’s global role in past years as perfect or altruistic—far from it. The reality is that Trump in his second term has brought about generational shifts. “The World After Trump” is our attempt to strain beyond the drumbeat of news and imagine where this new trajectory leads.
We’re in a new world disorder. No matter your politics or where you live in the world, it’s clear that the United States has altered its trajectory of the last several decades. The leaders of the world’s biggest economic and military power feel unconstrained by domestic or international law when it comes to waging war or toppling leaders of countries they deem to be a threat; they no longer wish to be responsible for Europe’s defense; and they see international trade not as a global public good but as a zero-sum game that must be won by any means necessary.
Supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump will find these shifts in policy appealing. Critics will not. The Spring 2026 issue of Foreign Policy is not designed to litigate this dispute. Nor is it trying to portray Washington’s global role in past years as perfect or altruistic—far from it. The reality is that Trump in his second term has brought about generational shifts. “The World After Trump” is our attempt to strain beyond the drumbeat of news and imagine where this new trajectory leads.
We kick off with an essay from Hal Brands, one of the sharpest strategic thinkers in Washington. Brands offers three scenarios for what the world could look like in the coming years. The first is a new cold war in which the United States and China coerce and cajole the rest of the world to pick a side. The second is a planet fragmented into regional spheres of influence—a new age of empires that would bring with it constant conflict amid jostling for land and power. The third scenario is darker still: A “self-help” world in which the United States adopts a predatory approach and the global system collapses into anarchy. Brands sees hints of each scenario in our current moment. “The critical question, to be answered in the coming decade,” Brands concludes, “is whether Washington tries to replace that world with something fraught but tolerable—or drives the present uncertainty toward something radically worse.”
Historian Nils Gilman disrupts these scenarios with a provocation: that our era is distinctive because countries must make a choice that isn’t primarily ideological. Gilman argues that Trump has divided the world into petrostates and electrostates. While the United States, Russia, and the Gulf monarchies are building power on the foundation of fossil fuels, China is seducing countries to join a green bloc that is betting its future on solar panels and batteries.
Sarang Shidore of the Quincy Institute shines a spotlight on the countries caught in between these tussles. His essay on middle powers makes the case that nations from Brazil to India to South Africa are being pushed toward collaboration by the transgressions of the great powers. But can these states forge a genuine third force in global politics? Shidore argues that the conditions have never been more favorable.
FP columnist Emma Ashford takes up one of the most consequential relationships of the last eight decades: the trans-Atlantic alliance. Rather than mourning what has been lost, Ashford asks what a healthier, more balanced partnership between the United States and Europe might look like—and argues that both sides could end up happier in a relationship between equals.
Finally, the question everyone will be asking ahead of the U.S. midterm elections this fall: Does the Democratic Party have an alternative vision for U.S. foreign policy? FP columnist Suzanne Nossel proposes one that builds on the domestic “abundance” agenda that has won fans on the American left. “Rather than aiming to run or remake the world,” she writes, “a foreign policy of abundance should make U.S. economic strength and broad-based prosperity its first order of business.” In practice, that would mean an all-of-government push to become a leader in the acquisition of critical minerals, position the United States back at the forefront of innovation, and return to a strategy of privileging alliances and global multilateral institutions.
Taken together, these five essays offer no single vision of the future—and that is precisely the point. One could even argue that our current moment may not be an interregnum between orders but the new norm—a return to the chaotic history humankind has struggled through. All that’s clear is that the uncertainty of the moment means there are now widely divergent possible futures that our leaders could shape.
There’s a lot more in the issue, including a snapshot of our best arguments of the quarter from around the world and our favorite reviews of books and movies. Remember to check in on our website for all the latest.
As ever,
Ravi Agrawal
