The End of the American Era? The Rise of New Powers in the International Order. This question has become increasingly urgent as we navigate the complex geopolitical landscape of 2025, where traditional power structures appear to be undergoing profound transformation. For over seven decades, the United States has occupied a position of unparalleled dominance in the international system—economically, militarily, culturally, and institutionally. This “American Era” shaped global norms, international institutions, and security arrangements in ways that reflected American interests and values. Yet today, we witness mounting evidence suggesting this era may be drawing to a close, with the international order evolving toward what many analysts describe as “multipolarization.” China’s continued economic growth, Russia’s strategic assertiveness, the expansion of BRICS to encompass a broader coalition of the Global South, and America’s internal challenges have all contributed to a rapidly shifting distribution of global power. This essay examines the evidence for and against the proposition that the American Era is ending, assesses the nature and extent of emerging powers’ influence, and considers possible trajectories for the international order in the coming decades.
Historical Context: The American Era
To evaluate claims about the end of American hegemony, we must first understand what constituted the “American Era” and how it came to dominate the international system. The foundations of American global leadership were laid in the aftermath of World War II, when the United States emerged as the preeminent economic and military power among Western nations. While the Soviet Union provided an alternative center of power during the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet system in 1991 left the United States as the world’s sole superpower what political scientist Charles Krauthammer famously termed the “unipolar moment.”
This unipolar period saw the United States enjoy unprecedented global influence. Economically, the US dollar established itself as the world’s reserve currency, American corporations dominated global markets, and US-led financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank shaped the economic architecture of the international system. Militarily, American capabilities far outstripped those of any potential rival, with defense spending exceeding that of the next several nations combined and a network of alliances and military bases spanning the globe. Culturally, American soft power expressed through film, music, consumer products, and educational institutions extended American influence far beyond what could be achieved through traditional diplomacy or force.
The unipolar moment, however, proved to be relatively brief. The economic costs of maintaining global military commitments, the rise of terrorism as demonstrated by the 9/11 attacks, and the growing economic dynamism of regions outside the West—particularly East Asia all suggested limits to American power. The 2003 Iraq War and its aftermath further damaged American credibility, while the 2008 financial crisis exposed vulnerabilities in the US-centered economic model. These developments provided space for emerging powers to expand their influence and challenge aspects of the American-led order.
By the 2010s, scholars and policymakers were increasingly debating whether American hegemony was sustainable or whether a transition to a more multipolar system was underway. This debate has only intensified in the years since, with growing evidence of both American relative decline and the rise of alternative centers of power and influence in the international system.
The State of American Power in 2025
As we assess the international landscape in early 2025, the United States continues to possess formidable strengths but faces significant challenges both domestically and internationally. Economically, the picture is mixed. While the US economy grew by 2.7% in 2024, outpacing the 1.7% growth forecast for all developed markets, there are growing concerns about sustainability7. President Trump has declined to rule out a potential recession in 2025, citing the economic “transition” as his policies bring wealth back to America6. More worryingly, the Atlanta Federal Reserve’s economic index predicts a concerning 2.4% contraction in Real GDP growth for the first quarter of 2025, potentially marking the worst performance since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic6.
The federal budget deficit, which grew to over $1.8 trillion in fiscal 2024, remains a source of long-term vulnerability, with 62% of Americans expecting it to increase further in 20251. This fiscal challenge constrains America’s ability to invest in the foundations of future power infrastructure, education, research and development while potentially undermining confidence in the dollar over time.
Political polarization continues to hamper America’s global leadership, with 76% of Americans anticipating a year of political conflict rather than cooperation1. This internal division complicates the formation and execution of coherent foreign policy, making it difficult for the United States to respond effectively to international challenges. The unpredictability of Trump’s tariff policies, which have shifted several times since his inauguration, has left businesses and investors in a state of confusion, potentially undermining economic stability6.
Despite these challenges, certain pillars of American power remain robust. The US dollar has “continued to defy gravity,” rising 7% in 2024 despite two Fed rate cuts, with the real broad effective exchange rate remaining near all-time highs7. This monetary strength reflects superior productivity growth, higher business investment, and fewer labor supply issues compared to other developed markets. Additionally, the gap between U.S. 10-year bond yields and those of its key trading partners has widened to its highest level since 1994, maintaining the dollar’s attractiveness to global investors7.
Militarily, the United States maintains significant advantages in conventional and nuclear capabilities, force projection, and technological sophistication. However, the gap with competitors particularly China has narrowed in key domains including artificial intelligence, hypersonic weapons, and cyber capabilities.
American public opinion reflects both awareness of these challenges and concern about the future direction of international relations. A majority of Americans (56%) expect the country to experience “economic difficulty” in 2025, while 76% forecast “political conflict”1. Perhaps most tellingly, 61% of Americans believe China will “increase its power in the world” in 2025, suggesting a widespread perception that the international balance of power is shifting1.
Political Division in the United States: Partisan Conflict and Declining Freedoms
The Rise of China as a Global Power
China’s continued economic growth and expanding global influence represent perhaps the most significant challenge to American primacy. China plans to expand its economy by around 5 percent in 2025, unchanged from the target set for 20243. As former Slovenian president Danilo Türk noted, “A 5-percent growth in China equates to about one third of the global growth… we can see the stabilizing effect of Chinese growth, and its stable growth benefits the whole world.”3 This economic stability is particularly significant given that the World Economic Forum predicted a global economy under considerable strain in 2025, with 56 percent of surveyed chief economists expecting the global economy to weaken3.
China’s economic approach has evolved to address both immediate growth challenges and longer-term structural transitions. In response to shifting economic landscapes complicated by weak demand and rising trade tensions, China has intensified its pro-growth policies since late 2024, yielding positive results3. For 2025, China has committed to a moderately loose monetary policy and a more proactive fiscal policy, raising the deficit-to-GDP ratio to around 4 percent a figure that mirrors America’s own fiscal stance3.
Beyond its domestic economy, China has pursued a long-term strategy of infrastructure development, technological advancement, and institutional innovation that expands its global influence. The Belt and Road Initiative, despite criticism and setbacks, has significantly increased China’s economic and political relationships across Asia, Africa, and parts of Europe. Chinese technology companies have established leading positions in sectors from telecommunications to renewable energy, often offering alternatives to Western products and standards.
However, China faces its own set of challenges, including demographic decline, environmental degradation, and the transition to a consumption-based economy. Its assertive foreign policy has generated backlash among neighbors and Western nations alike, potentially limiting its soft power appeal. The structural inefficiencies in its state-dominated economy may constrain future growth, while political controls risk hampering innovation over time.
The relationship between the United States and China has deteriorated significantly in recent years, with some analysts characterizing the situation as a potential “new Cold War”5. Shortly after his inauguration in January 2025, President Trump declared a “menacing multi-front trade war aimed generally to protect the US economy and specifically to rein in China”5. He announced that China would be “slapped with 10 percent higher import tariffs – over and above the current levies – if Beijing doesn’t take action to freeze fentanyl, a banned drug, from entering US territory”5.
This trade confrontation reflects deeper strategic competition between the world’s two largest economies. As one analysis explains, “China’s shadow on a stagnating US economic landscape is quickly getting longer, bigger, and darker”5. Export-driven growth has been fundamental to China’s rise, creating tensions with an America concerned about manufacturing decline and trade deficits.
BRICS and the Emergence of a Multipolar Order
The expansion of BRICS (originally consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) represents one of the most visible manifestations of the shift toward multipolarity. With the recent addition of Indonesia as a member and Nigeria as a partner, along with Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates joining earlier, the BRICS countries now account for a remarkable 46% of global GDP and 55% of the world’s population4. Over 30 other countries around the world have expressed interest in joining, suggesting that BRICS’ economic and political importance will continue to grow4.
Under Brazil’s presidency in 2025, BRICS has adopted the motto: “Strengthening cooperation in the ‘Global South’ for more inclusive and sustainable governance”4. This framing explicitly positions BRICS as both a platform for the Global South and a rival to the G7, indicating its ambition to reshape aspects of the international order. The continued admission of new members, emerging tensions with the USA under President Trump, and ongoing geopolitical conflicts involving BRICS countries (primarily Russia’s war in Ukraine) all contribute to the growing significance of this coalition4.
The historical context for BRICS’ emergence reveals its nature as a response to perceived imbalances in the international system. As one analysis notes, “China’s role in forming BRICS [was] to counter the West”5. This orientation has become more explicit as the organization has expanded, with newer members often sharing frustrations about Western dominance of international institutions and norms.
However, BRICS faces substantial internal contradictions that limit its cohesion and effectiveness. Its members have diverse political systems, economic models, and strategic interests that sometimes conflict. For instance, India and China maintain tense relations over border disputes and regional influence, while democratic Brazil may have differing values from authoritarian members like Russia and Iran. These internal tensions make it difficult for BRICS to articulate coherent alternatives to existing international institutions or norms beyond broad principles of sovereignty and non-interference.
Nevertheless, the growing economic weight of BRICS countries gives them increasing leverage in international negotiations and institutions. Their combined share of global GDP has grown substantially since the original grouping formed in 2009, and projections suggest this trend will continue. This economic influence translates into greater political voice, particularly in international financial institutions and trade negotiations.
FDA Cracks Down on Red Dye 3: The Facts Behind the Ban
The Munich Security Report 2025 and “Multipolarization”
The Munich Security Report 2025, released in February, provides a comprehensive analysis of what it terms “multipolarization” and its implications for international security2. The report acknowledges that “for many politicians and citizens around the globe, a more multipolar world holds significant promise.” This optimistic reading highlights opportunities for more inclusive global governance and greater constraints on Washington, which has long been seen as too dominant a power by many nations2.
However, the report also presents a more pessimistic reading, suggesting that “multipolarization increases the risk of disorder and conflict and undermines effective cooperation.” Recent trends suggest that “the negative effects of greater multipolarity are prevailing as divides between major powers grow and competition among different order models stands in the way of joint approaches to global crises and threats”2. This assessment highlights a crucial distinction between multipolarity as a distribution of power and multipolarity as a functioning system of international order.
The Munich Security Index 2025 reveals significant variation in how multipolarity is perceived across different regions. In aggregate, people in G7 countries are “less optimistic about a more multipolar world than respondents in the ‘BICS’ countries (BRICS minus Russia)”2. This perception gap reflects different experiences with the current international order and different expectations for a future one.
To address the challenges of multipolarization, the Munich Security Report makes the case for “depolarization,” highlighting “the need for substantial reforms of the international order”2. This approach recognizes that while the shift toward a more distributed power structure appears inevitable, the nature of interactions between major powers and the institutional frameworks governing those interactions remain subject to collective choice and diplomatic effort.
The report examines eight key actors that “to varying extents, assert the claim to constitute a pole in the international order”—the United States, China, European Union, Russia, India, Japan, Brazil, and South Africa2. This detailed analysis of multiple powers further illustrates how the international system has evolved beyond the bipolar Cold War era or the unipolar moment of American hegemony toward a more complex, multifaceted distribution of influence and capability.
Economic Transformations and Power Shifts
The international economic landscape of 2025 reflects both continuities and changes in the distribution of global economic power. While the United States maintains advantages in financial markets, currency dominance, and technological innovation, emerging economies—particularly in Asia—continue to gain ground in manufacturing, trade, and increasingly in high-value sectors.
The global economic outlook for 2025 remains uncertain, with the World Economic Forum predicting “a global economy under considerable strain, with 56 percent of the surveyed chief economists expecting the global economy to weaken in the year ahead”3. This challenging environment creates both vulnerabilities and opportunities for established and rising powers alike.
Trade patterns have been significantly disrupted by Trump’s tariff policies, which have targeted not only China but also Mexico, Canada, India, and the European Union5. These measures reflect a more confrontational approach to economic statecraft that prioritizes bilateral leverage over multilateral rules and institutions. As Trump himself declared, “He wants the US to take control of the Panama Canal, as well as Canada and Greenland” rhetoric that signals a more unilateral and nationalist approach to international economic relations5.
The resilience of the US dollar remains a crucial element of American economic power. Despite expectations of decline, the dollar has “continued to defy gravity, rising 7% in 2024 despite two Fed rate cuts”7. This strength reflects several factors: economic growth differentials (with the US outpacing other developed economies), monetary policy differentials (with the US maintaining higher interest rates), and policy changes under the Trump administration that may “sustain higher interest rates, supporting the dollar”7.
However, persistent concerns about the US fiscal position could eventually undermine dollar dominance. The federal budget deficit grew to over $1.8 trillion in fiscal 2024, and 62% of Americans expect it to increase further in 20251. This fiscal challenge creates potential long-term vulnerabilities for both the American economy and the dollar’s international role.
Meanwhile, China’s steady growth of around 5% in 2025 representing “about one third of the global growth”—provides a stabilizing influence on the world economy at a time of considerable uncertainty3. This economic performance, coupled with China’s expanding trade relationships and financial initiatives, gradually increases Beijing’s economic leverage relative to Washington’s.
America’s Digital Privacy: Does the U.S. Need EU-Style Regulations?
Geopolitical Realignment and Regional Powers
Beyond the US-China dynamic, the international system of 2025 features a range of regional and middle powers exercising increased autonomy and influence. The Munich Security Report 2025 dedicates chapters to analyzing several of these powers, including the European Union (“A Perfect Polar Storm”), Russia (“The Czar’s Gambit”), India (“Modi-fied Status”), Japan (“A New Normal”), Brazil (“Lula Land”), and South Africa (“The Fate of Good Hope”)2. This analytical approach itself reflects the growing significance of multiple centers of power in the international order.
Russia continues to assert itself as a major power despite economic limitations and international isolation following its invasion of Ukraine. Russian strategy has focused on leveraging military capabilities, energy resources, and disruptive diplomacy to maintain global relevance. Moscow has also strengthened its partnership with Beijing, though tensions and competition exist beneath the surface of this relationship.
India occupies a particularly interesting position in the evolving international system. As both a BRICS member and a strategic partner of the United States, India navigates a complex balancing act between competing power centers. India’s demographic advantages, growing economy, democratic political system, and expanding military capabilities make it a potentially crucial swing state in the future international order.
The European Union faces significant challenges as it attempts to develop “strategic autonomy” amid competing pressures from the United States, China, and Russia. Internal divisions between member states complicate the formation of coherent foreign and security policies, yet the EU’s economic weight, normative influence, and potential military capabilities ensure its continued relevance in any multipolar system.
Middle powers like Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia have increasingly pursued independent foreign policies that balance relationships with major powers while advancing their own regional interests. This proliferation of consequential actors complicates international coordination while creating new possibilities for flexible coalitions and issue-specific cooperation outside traditional blocs.
The Future of International Institutions
The stresses of multipolarization have placed significant strain on international institutions created under American leadership in the post-WWII era. The United Nations faces persistent deadlock on major security issues due to great power competition in the Security Council, limiting its effectiveness in conflict resolution. Reform efforts to make the UN more representative of contemporary power distributions have made little progress, with established powers reluctant to dilute their privileges and disagreements among rising powers about appropriate changes.
The contrast between the G7 and BRICS illustrates competing visions for international coordination. The G7, comprising advanced democracies historically allied with the United States, continues to articulate a vision of a rules-based international order grounded in liberal values. BRICS, under Brazil’s 2025 leadership focused on “Strengthening cooperation in the ‘Global South’ for more inclusive and sustainable governance,” presents itself as an alternative platform emphasizing sovereignty, development, and greater representation for emerging economies4.
Regional organizations have gained importance as venues for addressing security and economic challenges outside global frameworks. The European Union, African Union, ASEAN, and others have expanded their roles in regional governance, reflecting both the advantages of geographical proximity and shared interests, and the difficulties of global consensus.
New multilateral formations have emerged to address specific challenges, often bringing together diverse coalitions of states, businesses, civil society organizations, and international agencies. These flexible arrangements can sometimes achieve progress where formal institutions become deadlocked, but they may lack legitimacy, accountability, and enforcement capabilities.
The overall trend suggests movement away from a coherent, US-led international order toward a more fragmented landscape characterized by overlapping, sometimes competing institutional frameworks. This “institutional multiplicity” creates both risks of inefficiency and forum-shopping, and opportunities for experimentation and adaptation to diverse needs and circumstances.
The Digital Dollar Debate: Is America Ready for the Future of Money?
The New Cold War? US-China Rivalry in 2025
The deterioration in US-China relations has accelerated in early 2025, leading some analysts to characterize the situation as a potential “new Cold War”5. Trump’s aggressive trade policies toward China have been accompanied by confrontational rhetoric and strategic competition across multiple domains—economic, technological, military, and ideological.
There are surface similarities to the original US-USSR Cold War, including: “Trump’s tariff wars in both terms; China’s role in forming BRICS to counter the West”5. These parallels suggest a structural competition between two competing centers of power with different visions for the international order.
However, the US-China relationship differs from the US-USSR Cold War in crucial ways. The two economies are deeply interconnected, with extensive trade, investment, and educational links creating mutual vulnerabilities absent in the original Cold War. Neither country adheres to an explicitly universalist ideology seeking global conversion, though tensions exist between liberal democratic and authoritarian governance models. And unlike the Soviet Union, China has integrated itself into the existing international order while seeking to reform it from within rather than overthrow it entirely.
The economic dimension of this competition is particularly significant. China’s continued growth trajectory poses a direct challenge to America’s economic primacy, with some analysts noting that “China is firmly on course to replace the US as the world’s economic superpower”5. This economic competition drives much of the broader strategic rivalry, as both nations seek to translate economic power into diplomatic influence, technological advantage, and military capability.
The risks of this intensifying competition are substantial. Economic decoupling could undermine global prosperity and reduce incentives for cooperation on shared challenges like climate change, pandemics, and nuclear proliferation. Military competition could escalate into dangerous confrontations, particularly in flashpoints like Taiwan or the South China Sea. And the polarization of the international system into competing blocs could force other countries to make difficult choices that constrain their autonomy and development options.
Scenarios for the Future International Order
Looking beyond 2025, several potential scenarios emerge for the evolution of the international order, each with different implications for global stability, prosperity, and cooperation.
Renewed American leadership would involve the United States addressing internal weaknesses while recommitting to international institutions and alliances. This scenario would require significant domestic reforms to strengthen economic competitiveness, reduce polarization, and rebuild policy capacity. It would also demand a more collaborative approach to international leadership that acknowledges the legitimate interests and growing influence of other powers while preserving core liberal values and institutions. However, current trends suggest this scenario faces substantial obstacles, with American politics remaining deeply divided and the Trump administration pursuing a more nationalist, unilateral approach to foreign policy1.
Chinese hegemony represents an alternative scenario in which China’s economic and eventually military power surpasses America’s, allowing Beijing to reshape international rules and institutions according to its preferences. This outcome would likely feature stronger emphasis on sovereignty, state-led development, and non-interference principles, with potential democratic regression in regions under Chinese influence. While China’s continued economic growth provides a foundation for expanded influence3, Beijing faces significant constraints including demographic challenges, environmental problems, and resistance from both the United States and regional powers concerned about Chinese dominance.
True multipolarity, as analyzed in the Munich Security Report 2025, would involve several major powers balancing each other without any single hegemon2. This scenario could take competitive forms with intensified security dilemmas and economic rivalry, or more cooperative forms with powers agreeing on basic rules while maintaining distinct spheres of influence. Current trends suggest movement toward greater multipolarity, but with significant tensions between major powers that could undermine effective cooperation on global challenges2.
Fragmentation and disorder constitutes a pessimistic scenario in which declining American power is not replaced by either Chinese hegemony or stable multipolarity, but rather by a breakdown in international cooperation. This outcome would feature weakened global institutions, increased regional conflicts, economic decoupling, and difficulty addressing transnational challenges like climate change, pandemics, and technological risks. Some worrying signs of this scenario are already visible in rising geopolitical tensions, trade conflicts, and institutional deadlock15.
Cooperative multipolarity offers perhaps the most optimistic pathway, involving major powers acknowledging their different values and interests while agreeing on pragmatic cooperation in areas of mutual benefit and existential importance. The Munich Security Report’s call for “depolarization” and substantial reforms of the international order points toward this scenario2. Achieving this outcome would require significant diplomatic creativity to design institutions and norms that accommodate both liberal and non-liberal states while maintaining sufficient common purpose to address global challenges.
Political Machines APUSH Definition: Influence, Corruption, and Impact on U.S. History
Conclusion
The evidence examined in this essay suggests that the international order is indeed undergoing a significant transformation that could be characterized as the end of the American Era, at least as it has existed since World War II and especially since the Cold War’s conclusion. The rise of China, the expansion of BRICS4, the assertiveness of regional powers, and America’s internal challenges1 all point toward a more multipolar distribution of power in the international system.
However, this transition remains incomplete and contested. The United States maintains significant advantages in military capabilities, financial markets, technological innovation, and alliance networks. The dollar’s continued strength in 2025 despite geopolitical tensions demonstrates the persistent structural power of the American economy7. Meanwhile, rising powers face their own limitations and contradictions that may constrain their ability to reshape the international order according to their preferences.
The Munich Security Report 2025’s analysis of “multipolarization” captures this complex reality, acknowledging both the inevitable diffusion of power to multiple centers and the negative effects that can result from unmanaged competition between those centers2. The report’s call for “depolarization” highlights the crucial distinction between multipolarity as a distribution of power and multipolarity as a functioning system of international order.
The economic dimension of this power transition appears particularly significant. While the US economy continues to demonstrate resilience and advantages in key sectors, China’s steady growth of around 5% represents about one-third of global growth, providing a stabilizing effect on the world economy during a period of considerable uncertainty3. The expanded BRICS coalition now accounts for 46% of global GDP and 55% of the world’s population, creating a powerful alternative center of economic gravity in the international system4.
Political and security dynamics further illustrate the shift toward multipolarity. The intensifying rivalry between the United States and China has led some analysts to warn of a “new Cold War” developing in 20255. Meanwhile, the Munich Security Report identifies multiple actors that “to varying extents, assert the claim to constitute a pole in the international order”—including not only the US and China but also the European Union, Russia, India, Japan, Brazil, and South Africa2.
As we look toward the future, the central challenge appears to be not whether the international system will become more multipolar—this trend seems well established—but rather what kind of multipolarity will emerge. Will it feature destructive competition and institutional fragmentation, or can major powers develop new frameworks for cooperation that accommodate diversity while addressing shared challenges? The answer will depend not only on structural forces and power shifts but also on leadership choices, institutional innovation, and collective action to reform the international order for a new era.
In this context, the end of the American Era need not mean the collapse of international cooperation or the abandonment of core values like human rights, democracy, and rule of law. Rather, it may require embedding these principles in more inclusive, representative institutions that recognize the legitimate interests and growing influence of emerging powers. This transition will inevitably involve friction and setbacks, but with foresight and diplomacy, it could eventually yield a more stable and equitable international order adapted to the multipolar realities of the 21st century.
