Strategic Turmoil: The American Elite and the Reshaping of the International Order. This reality has become increasingly apparent as we move through 2025, a year characterized by profound transformations in global power dynamics, institutional frameworks, and geopolitical alignments. The return of Donald Trump to the White House has accelerated these shifts, as his administration pursues policies that explicitly challenge longstanding assumptions about America’s role in the world. These developments have forced American political, economic, and military elites to confront difficult questions about the sustainability of the post-World War II international order that the United States helped create and has led for over seven decades. This essay examines how American elites are responding to the relative decline of U.S. hegemony, the rise of alternative power centers, particularly China, and the growing influence of populist movements that question the legitimacy of traditional leadership structures. It explores the strategic choices facing American decision-makers as they navigate a more multipolar world while addressing domestic pressures for change, and considers the potential trajectories of the international system as these dynamics continue to unfold.

Historical Context: The American-Led Order and Its Evolution

To understand the current strategic turmoil, we must first appreciate the historical context of the international order that American elites helped construct after World War II. The United States emerged from that conflict as the dominant global power, with unparalleled economic, military, and technological advantages. American leadership established key international institutions including the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (later the World Trade Organization). These frameworks institutionalized American influence while providing public goods that benefited allies and partners.

The foundations of this order were laid when the United States embraced what diplomatic historians have called the “open door” approach to international engagement. This represented a shift from earlier American reluctance to assume global leadership responsibilities. As one analysis notes, “The post-second world war period was characterised by the evolving freer cross-border movement of goods, services and capital. There was nothing natural or inevitable about it”1. This system reflected American values and interests, promoting liberal democracy, market capitalism, and multilateral cooperation.

During the Cold War, this order faced a significant challenge from the Soviet Union and its allies, creating a bipolar international system. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 ushered in what political scientist Charles Krauthammer famously termed the “unipolar moment” – a period of unprecedented American dominance across all dimensions of power. This era saw American elites pursue an ambitious agenda aimed at expanding liberal democracy, free markets, and American-led security arrangements globally.

The unipolar moment, however, proved relatively brief. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, redirected American strategic focus toward counterterrorism and led to costly military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. These conflicts, particularly the Iraq War, began to expose the limits of American power and undermine global confidence in American leadership. The 2008 financial crisis further damaged the credibility of the American economic model and accelerated the relative rise of emerging powers, especially China.

By the 2010s, the international system was already showing clear signs of transformation toward greater multipolarity. The Obama administration acknowledged these changes through its “pivot to Asia” and attempts to engage rising powers through reformed institutional arrangements. The Trump administration’s first term (2017-2021) marked a more dramatic shift, explicitly questioning many of the assumptions underlying the post-war order through an “America First” approach that emphasized bilateral transactionalism over multilateral cooperation. The Biden administration (2021-2025) attempted to restore some traditional elements of American leadership while acknowledging the need for adaptation to new realities.

Now, with Trump’s return to office in 2025, we are witnessing an intensified effort to fundamentally reshape America’s global role and, by extension, the international order itself. This historical trajectory forms the essential backdrop to current strategic deliberations among American elites.

The Current State of American Power in 2025

As we assess the international landscape in early 2025, the United States maintains significant advantages in many domains but faces unprecedented challenges to its global leadership. Trump’s return to the presidency has brought with it an explicit intention to disrupt and reshape the world order. As one analysis notes, “The incoming Trump administration will intensify US domestic and foreign policy risks to international business in 2025. Trump intends to use his second term to disrupt and reshape world order, positioning the US for more direct and aggressive confrontation of its economic and geopolitical adversaries”3.

This approach occurs against a backdrop of relative American decline. While still the world’s largest economy and most powerful military force, the United States faces growing competition across multiple dimensions of power. As observers have noted, “US global power is in relative decline. Countries have other options for borrowing money, trading goods and buying tech. Rising powers are enlisting the so-called global south in alternate institutions”3. Advanced technologies are empowering rivals and undercutting traditional American military advantages, while democratic dysfunction and controversial foreign policy choices have diminished American soft power.

The fiscal picture presents particular concerns. Neither major political party has demonstrated serious commitment to addressing the unsustainable budget deficits that threaten a key pillar of American geopolitical dominance: its financial strength. As one analysis bluntly states, this “laxity…is eroding the financial pillar of US geopolitical dominance. A world without an obvious hegemon will be more fluid, flexible and volatile”3.

Trump’s specific policy directions in early 2025 have accelerated these trends. His administration has signaled intentions to withdraw U.S. forces stationed abroad, withdraw from or handicap key international institutions and treaties, and condition partnerships and alliances on specific concessions. Isolationist – or at least non-interventionist – sentiment has been mainstreamed through the “America First” approach now being institutionalized throughout the bureaucracy.

The administration has also launched what observers characterize as a “menacing multi-front trade war aimed generally to protect the US economy and specifically to rein in China”3. The uncertainty surrounding the magnitude and timing of proposed tariffs has created significant upheaval in global markets. Meanwhile, Trump’s rhetoric about “taking back” the Panama Canal and acquiring Greenland, explicitly not ruling out the use of force, has generated considerable anxiety among allies and partners.

The technological dimension of strategic competition has intensified as well. China’s unveiling of DeepSeek, an advanced language AI model that appears competitive with American alternatives, has called into question the valuations of major U.S. technology companies and raised doubts about the effectiveness of technology export controls1.

Despite these challenges, certain elements of American power remain robust. The U.S. dollar continues to demonstrate remarkable resilience as the world’s primary reserve currency. Economic growth has continued, albeit unevenly, with the U.S. outpacing many other developed economies. And America’s network of alliances, though strained, still represents a significant strategic advantage not enjoyed by rivals like China or Russia.

Political Division in the United States: Partisan Conflict and Declining Freedoms

The American Elite and Strategic Reorientation

The current strategic turmoil has prompted intensive debate among American elites about the appropriate response to these changing circumstances. Across political, military, economic, and intellectual spheres, there is growing recognition that the post-Cold War approach to international engagement requires significant recalibration.

As one recent assessment argues, “Today, a growing number of analysts argue that the United States needs a major strategic reorientation. They contend that the United States needs to be more selective in its commitments and engagements if it is to remain secure and prosperous in the decades to come”5. This perspective acknowledges that “the era of American hyperpower is over, and the country cannot afford a policy of largesse everywhere and at all times”5.

This does not necessarily imply American withdrawal from global leadership. Rather, it suggests a more disciplined approach that prioritizes core interests and acknowledges the reality of limited resources. Without such discipline, American foreign policy “may become prohibitively costly and risky while the highest priorities suffer from neglect. At worst, staying on the current trajectory could set the stage for a catastrophic global war”5.

The evolution toward this perspective has been gradual. For decades following the Cold War, American elites largely embraced what critics have termed “liberal hegemony” – an ambitious approach aimed at transforming the international system in America’s image. This strategy initially achieved significant successes, including the stabilization of post-Communist Europe and economic development that lifted hundreds of millions from poverty globally.

However, the same strategic luxury that enabled these achievements also permitted serious mistakes, including “the strategic blunder of invading Iraq and turned a targeted anti–al Qaeda campaign in Afghanistan into a nation-building operation that ultimately failed. It also led to overreach in Europe and set the stage for overreach in Asia”5. The cumulative effect of these errors has been to create “an approach to the world that is poorly adapted to the challenges of today and tomorrow”5.

The Trump administration’s return represents one response to this strategic mismatch – a nationalist approach that emphasizes American sovereignty, bilateral dealmaking, and skepticism toward traditional alliances and institutions. Yet other segments of the American elite advocate different forms of strategic reorientation – from selective engagement focused on great power competition to reformed multilateralism that preserves key elements of the liberal international order while accommodating rising powers.

Implementing any significant strategic shift faces substantial obstacles. U.S. foreign policy “deals with every nation in the world, every potential transnational issue, and every world institution. America’s approach to the world is also highly institutionalized. These realities impede a new president or administration from introducing a major change, especially if that change involves being more selective and doing less”5.

Research indicates that several factors are particularly important for enabling strategic change:

• A major external crisis
• A concerted White House effort to overcome bureaucratic resistanc
• The president’s willingness to spend political capital on changing course
• United executive and legislative branches of government
• An approach that addresses the psychological obstacles to change5

The Trump administration appears determined to force such change despite institutional resistance. Whether this effort will succeed in fundamentally reshaping American grand strategy remains to be seen, but the intention to do so is clear and is already generating significant turbulence in the international system.

The U.S.-China Rivalry: Beyond Ideology

At the center of current strategic turmoil lies the intensifying rivalry between the United States and China. Often characterized as a “New Cold War,” this competition has become the defining feature of the international landscape. However, its nature differs significantly from the U.S.-Soviet competition of the previous century.

Despite rhetoric about democracy versus authoritarianism, the U.S.-China rivalry is fundamentally rooted in capitalist competition rather than purely ideological difference. As one analysis points out, “If there were an ideology-based Cold War between the United States and China, it should have started thirty years ago”4. Instead, American elites were “very happy about Chinese authoritarianism for a long time”4 when it facilitated profitable economic engagement.

The transformation from economic partnership to strategic rivalry was driven largely by shifting corporate interests. Researchers examining “US corporations’ exposures to China over the last three decades” and “the lobbying activities of these firms on behalf of China” have found that “this shift was ultimately driven by a huge shift of corporate American’s disposition toward China”4.

This economic competition has intensified in early 2025. Trump has portrayed China’s economic success as coming at America’s expense and has responded with aggressive tariff policies. His administration has “slapped China with 10 percent higher import tariffs – over and above the current levies”3, ostensibly in response to concerns about fentanyl trafficking but clearly aimed at addressing broader economic grievances.

Technology competition has emerged as a particularly critical dimension of this rivalry. China’s development of advanced AI systems like DeepSeek directly challenges American dominance in this strategic sector and “calls into question the valuations of the Magnificent Seven (a group of influential companies in the US, including Alphabet, Amazon, Apple and Meta) and the effectiveness of technology curbs”1.

The rivalry extends beyond bilateral relations to competition for influence in the “global south” and within international institutions. China has actively worked to enlist developing nations in alternative structures, most notably through the expansion of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) to include additional members. This grouping now represents a significant counterweight to Western-dominated forums like the G7.

American elites face difficult choices in managing this competition. Excessive confrontation risks economic damage and potential conflict, while accommodation could accelerate relative decline. The current administration has clearly chosen a more confrontational approach, but debates continue about the appropriate balance between competition and necessary cooperation on global challenges like climate change.

America’s Digital Privacy: Does the U.S. Need EU-Style Regulations?

Transnational Elite Integration and Its Challenges

A significant dimension of the current strategic turmoil concerns what scholars have termed “transnational elite integration” – the historical process by which Western, particularly American, elites have attempted to incorporate non-Western counterparts into shared institutions and practices of global governance.

Research describes this as “a historical and ongoing project of liberal-internationalist elites in the west to integrate non-western elites behind a common, western-led process of global capitalism”6. The establishment of a unified global elite represents “a hypothetical endpoint of these efforts, while transnational elite integration is a process that leads towards the increasing unification of elites”6.

This project has been central to American leadership of the post-war international order. By incorporating elites from other nations into institutions like the World Economic Forum, the Trilateral Commission, and various multinational corporate boards, American leaders sought to create consensus around liberal economic principles and Western-led globalization.

For decades, this approach achieved considerable success. Elites from diverse political systems found common interests in economic integration, institutional cooperation, and gradual liberalization. The incorporation of Chinese elites into this system following market reforms in the 1980s and 1990s represented perhaps the most ambitious application of this strategy.

However, the project of transnational elite integration now faces severe challenges. Rising powers, particularly China, demand greater voice in international institutions and resist aspects of Western leadership they view as serving primarily Western interests. Nationalist leaders in many countries, including the United States itself under Trump, explicitly reject the cosmopolitan values associated with transnational elites.

The integration project has also faced criticism for creating a disconnection between globally oriented elites and national populations. This gap has fueled populist movements that challenge elite consensus on issues like trade, immigration, and international cooperation. As one study notes, populist turbulence can “unsettle the collective democratic core of countries that undergirds much of U.S. military security”2, creating strategic challenges that transcend traditional geopolitical competition.

In response to these challenges, American elites have adopted varied approaches. Some maintain commitment to the integration project while acknowledging the need for reforms that give greater voice to non-Western perspectives. Others have embraced more nationalist positions that prioritize American sovereignty and reject aspects of globalization perceived as undermining national interests. Still others seek middle paths that preserve core elements of international cooperation while accommodating greater multipolarity.

The Trump administration’s return in 2025 clearly tilts American elite orientation toward the nationalist end of this spectrum. This shift creates significant turbulence in transnational elite networks that have underpinned global cooperation for decades and contributes to the broader reshaping of the international order.

The Populist Challenge to Elite Consensus

Populist movements represent a particularly potent challenge to traditional elite management of international affairs. By questioning fundamental assumptions about globalization, immigration, and cultural exchange, these movements have disrupted longstanding patterns of foreign policy formation in the United States and many partner nations.

Historical analysis suggests that “bursts of populist turbulence” can dramatically alter the strategic landscape. The populist surge of the 1920s and 1930s “dramatically altered the political terrain in Europe and South America in a few short years. However, U.S. strategic planners remained oblivious to its potential consequences because of a deeply grounded belief in the inevitable march toward democracy after World War I”2. This historical parallel offers a cautionary tale about the potential for rapid, discontinuous change in the international system.

The current wave of populism challenges elite consensus across multiple dimensions. Economically, it questions free trade arrangements that have underpinned global economic integration. Culturally, it resists cosmopolitan values associated with globalization. Institutionally, it expresses skepticism toward multilateral frameworks that constrain national sovereignty.

Trump’s presidency represents the most visible manifestation of this populist challenge to elite consensus in American foreign policy. His “America First” approach explicitly rejects many of the assumptions that have guided U.S. engagement with the world since World War II. Rather than viewing American leadership of the liberal international order as beneficial to core national interests, this perspective sees many international commitments as costly burdens that primarily benefit others.

Strategic planners and foreign policy elites have struggled to respond effectively to this populist challenge. Some have attempted to accommodate populist concerns while preserving core elements of the traditional approach. Others have directly opposed populist influence, arguing that it threatens vital national interests. A third group has sought to channel populist energy toward reformed versions of international engagement that address legitimate grievances while avoiding isolationism.

The strategic implications of populist influence extend beyond domestic politics to international alignments. Similar movements in Europe, Latin America, and elsewhere create potential for new coalitions based on shared nationalist orientations rather than traditional alliance structures. This dynamic adds another layer of unpredictability to the evolving international order.

The Digital Dollar Debate: Is America Ready for the Future of Money?

Military Alliances and Emerging Security Architectures

The transformation of the international order is perhaps most consequential in the realm of security arrangements. American military predominance has been a defining feature of the post-Cold War era, with U.S.-led alliances providing the foundation for regional security in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East.

Trump’s return to office has accelerated questioning of these arrangements. His administration has signaled intentions to “withdraw US forces stationed abroad, withdraw from or handicap key international institutions and treaties, and condition partnerships and alliances”3. This approach reflects a longstanding skepticism about the value of these commitments relative to their costs.

The specific impacts vary by region. In Europe, NATO faces renewed uncertainty about American commitment, prompting member states to increase their own defense spending and consider alternative security arrangements. The European Union has renewed discussions about “strategic autonomy,” though significant practical challenges remain to independent European defense capabilities.

In Asia, American allies like Japan, South Korea, and Australia confront growing Chinese power amid questions about the reliability of U.S. security guarantees. This has accelerated hedging strategies that combine continued alliance with the United States, increased indigenous defense capabilities, and pragmatic economic engagement with China.

The Middle East presents perhaps the most volatile security environment, with ongoing conflicts in Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen threatening broader regional destabilization. Trump’s approach to the region, including strong support for Israel and confrontational policies toward Iran, carries significant risks of escalation while potentially realigning regional relationships.

Beyond formal alliances, new security arrangements are emerging that reflect the more multipolar nature of the international system. Smaller regional groupings, bilateral security partnerships, and issue-specific coalitions increasingly complement or sometimes substitute for traditional alliance structures.

American military planners face difficult choices in adapting to this evolving landscape. Withdrawing from longstanding commitments could accelerate decline in U.S. influence, while maintaining all current obligations risks overextension. Finding the appropriate balance requires careful assessment of core interests, available resources, and the evolving capabilities of both allies and adversaries.

The Future of International Institutions

International institutions represent a critical arena where the reshaping of the international order is playing out. From the United Nations to the World Trade Organization to the International Monetary Fund, these organizations have institutionalized American influence while providing global public goods. Their future evolution will significantly impact the nature of the emerging international system.

Trump’s first term demonstrated skepticism toward many of these institutions, with withdrawal from some agreements (like the Paris Climate Accord) and criticism of others (like the World Health Organization). His return to office in 2025 has renewed concerns about American commitment to multilateral frameworks.

As one analysis notes, Trump is likely to accelerate the trend of relative American decline by “withdrawing from or handicapping key international institutions and treaties”3. This approach reflects a preference for bilateral negotiations where American leverage can be maximized rather than multilateral forums where constraints on power may apply.

This institutional turbulence coincides with growing demand from rising powers for greater voice in global governance. China, India, and other emerging economies have long argued that institutions established after World War II inadequately reflect current power distributions. This has led to the creation of alternative structures like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the expanded BRICS grouping.

The resulting institutional landscape is increasingly characterized by overlapping, sometimes competing frameworks rather than the more coherent system dominated by Western-led organizations that prevailed after the Cold War. This “institutional multiplicity” creates both challenges for effective global governance and opportunities for forum-shopping by states seeking favorable venues for their interests.

American elites are divided on how to respond to these institutional challenges. Some advocate reforms that preserve core American interests while accommodating rising powers’ legitimate demands for greater influence. Others prefer to double down on traditional Western-led institutions where American advantages remain strongest. A third group, ascendant in the current administration, favors reduced reliance on multilateral frameworks altogether.

The path forward likely involves a complex mix of institutional adaptation, competition, and occasional fragmentation. The resulting system will be more diverse and less coherent than the post-war order, requiring new approaches to coordination and problem-solving across partially overlapping institutional architectures.

The Digital Dollar Debate: Is America Ready for the Future of Money?

Conclusion: Navigating the Turbulence

As we move through 2025, the strategic turmoil reshaping the international order shows no signs of abating. American elites face unprecedented challenges in navigating this transformation while addressing domestic pressures for change. The decisions made in Washington, Beijing, Brussels, and other centers of power over the coming years will significantly influence whether the emerging system provides stability and prosperity or heightens conflict and inequality.

Several key themes emerge from our analysis. First, the relative decline of American hegemony appears inevitable, requiring strategic adaptation rather than resistance. As one assessment concludes, “the era of American hyperpower is over, and the country cannot afford a policy of largesse everywhere and at all times”5. This does not mean American withdrawal from global leadership but rather a more disciplined approach that prioritizes core interests and acknowledges resource constraints.

Second, the U.S.-China rivalry will continue to define the international landscape, though its form may evolve. Beyond simplistic characterizations as a “New Cold War,” this competition reflects complex economic interdependence, technological competition, and contested visions of global order. Managing this rivalry to prevent catastrophic conflict while protecting core interests represents perhaps the central strategic challenge facing American elites.

Third, the populist challenge to elite consensus requires substantive response rather than mere rhetorical adjustment. The disconnection between globally oriented elites and national populations has created political vulnerabilities that undermine effective international engagement. Rebuilding public support for America’s global role requires addressing legitimate concerns about who benefits from international engagement.

Finally, institutional adaptation will be essential for preserving effective global governance in a more multipolar world. Neither doubling down on existing frameworks nor abandoning multilateralism entirely offers a viable path forward. Instead, creative institutional evolution that combines reformed legacy institutions with new arrangements better suited to contemporary power distributions will be necessary.

Navigating this strategic turmoil successfully will require American elites to balance competing imperatives: maintaining sufficient international engagement to shape events while avoiding overextension; competing vigorously with rivals while cooperating on shared challenges; preserving core values while accommodating diverse perspectives; and addressing domestic needs while sustaining global leadership.

The outcome of these efforts remains uncertain. Pessimistic scenarios envision accelerating American decline, institutional breakdown, and potentially catastrophic great power conflict. More optimistic possibilities include a managed transition to a stable multipolar order with reformed institutions capable of addressing global challenges. The actual trajectory will likely fall somewhere between these extremes, shaped by leadership choices, external events, and structural forces beyond any single nation’s control.

What seems clear is that the American-led international order established after World War II is undergoing fundamental transformation. The strategic turmoil we currently witness represents the painful but necessary process of adaptation to new realities. How American elites navigate this turbulence will significantly influence whether the emerging international system enhances human security and prosperity or undermines both. The stakes could hardly be higher.

References:

• From open door to spheres of influence: US and the new global order
• Trump’s ‘America First’: US predominance as a threat to the liberal international order
• Grand strategy
• Strategic Rivalry between United States and China
• American decline
• Global elite continues to make billions from rigged economic system, Forbes rich list shows