The End of an Era
The Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from 31 United Nations entities marks more than a policy shift—it represents a potential inflection point in the post-World War II international order. For nearly eight decades, American leadership within multilateral institutions has been the cornerstone of what historians call “Pax Americana,” the relative peace and stability maintained through US hegemony. Now, as Washington turns inward, the question looms: can American imperialism survive without the institutional scaffolding it built?
Motivations Behind the Withdrawal
Economic Retrenchment
The most immediate driver of the US withdrawal is financial. With Washington owing $1.5 billion to the UN and having made no regular budget payments in 2024, the administration’s actions reflect a fundamental reassessment of international financial commitments. Trump’s critique that UN entities “operate contrary to U.S. national interests” suggests a transactional worldview where multilateral engagement must deliver tangible, measurable returns.
This represents a stark departure from the Marshall Plan mentality that viewed international institution-building as an investment in American security and prosperity. The post-war generation understood that US hegemony required not just military dominance but also the soft power that came from leading—and funding—the international system.
Ideological Rejection of Multilateralism
Beyond budgetary concerns lies a deeper ideological shift. The withdrawal from UN Women and climate treaties signals discomfort with the progressive social agenda that has come to dominate many international institutions. For conservative nationalists, these organizations represent an infringement on sovereignty, imposing external values on domestic policy.
This ideological dimension reveals a fundamental tension: the UN system was designed to reflect Western, particularly American, liberal values. Yet as these institutions evolved to incorporate diverse global perspectives, they became less aligned with the priorities of their founding patron. The US now finds itself at odds with organizations it created.
The Limits of Imperial Overreach
Perhaps most significantly, the withdrawal acknowledges the limits of American power. Maintaining global hegemony through institutional leadership requires resources, attention, and domestic political will—all of which are in short supply. The US faces mounting debt, crumbling infrastructure, political polarization, and competition from China that demands different allocations of national energy.
Imperial systems throughout history—from Rome to Britain—have faced similar moments of reckoning when the costs of maintaining far-flung commitments exceeded the benefits. The UN withdrawal may represent America’s belated recognition that its imperial reach has exceeded its grasp.
The Architecture of American Hegemony
To understand what might be lost, we must first understand what Pax Americana achieved. The post-1945 international order rested on three pillars:
Institutional Leadership: The US created and dominated institutions like the UN, World Bank, and IMF, which set global rules that favored American interests while providing public goods like conflict resolution and development assistance.
Military Supremacy: American military bases spanning the globe, alliance networks like NATO, and the world’s most powerful navy guaranteed freedom of navigation and deterred major power conflicts.
Economic Integration: The dollar’s reserve currency status, free trade agreements, and American-led financial systems created deep interdependence that made challenging US primacy costly.
These three elements were mutually reinforcing. Institutional leadership legitimized military presence; military power secured economic networks; economic dominance funded institutional engagement. Remove one pillar, and the entire structure becomes unstable.
Imperialism Without Institutions
Can American imperialism persist without robust engagement in multilateral institutions? History suggests challenges ahead.
The British Precedent
Britain’s imperial decline offers instructive parallels. After World War I, Britain remained militarily powerful but increasingly withdrew from international leadership, unable to maintain the costs of empire alongside domestic recovery. By abandoning the gold standard and retreating into imperial preference, Britain accelerated its own decline. The international system lost its anchor, contributing to the instability that produced World War II.
The US risks a similar trajectory. Without institutional engagement to legitimize its power, American influence increasingly relies on coercion rather than consent. This is both more expensive and less effective, as targets seek alternatives rather than accommodation.
The China Alternative
Beijing has watched America’s institutional retreat with interest and opportunity. While the US withdraws from climate agreements and women’s empowerment programs, China expands its Belt and Road Initiative, establishes the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and increases contributions to UN peacekeeping.
China offers a different model of international engagement: infrastructure investment without political conditionality, economic partnership without democratic demands, stability without human rights scrutiny. For many developing nations, this represents an appealing alternative to American leadership.
Critically, China is building institutional power while the US abandons it. Should this trend continue, future historians may mark 2026 as the year American hegemony gave way to Chinese primacy—not through military confrontation but through institutional leadership transition.
The Fragmentation Scenario
More likely than a clean handoff from American to Chinese hegemony is a fragmented multipolar world. Regional powers—India, Brazil, Turkey, Saudi Arabia—are asserting themselves in ways unthinkable during the Cold War. The international system may fracture into competing spheres of influence, each with its own institutions, standards, and rules.
This fragmentation carries profound risks. The post-1945 order, despite its flaws, prevented great power war and facilitated unprecedented economic growth. A world without a hegemon to enforce rules and provide public goods may prove more violent, more unstable, and less prosperous.
Singapore: Navigating the New Disorder
For Singapore, the implications of American retreat are particularly acute. The city-state’s prosperity and security have depended on the stability provided by Pax Americana in several key ways:
Maritime Security
Singapore’s economy is built on its position as a global shipping hub. Two-thirds of the world’s maritime trade passes through the Straits of Malacca. This trade route’s security has been guaranteed by the US Navy’s presence and freedom of navigation operations. As American commitment to these public goods wanes, Singapore faces increased vulnerability to regional instability, piracy, and potential Chinese domination of sea lanes.
Balanced Diplomacy
Singapore has carefully maintained relationships with both the US and China, benefiting from their competition while aligning with neither exclusively. This balancing act requires a stable, rules-based international system where small states can play great powers against each other. In a more fragmented world with weakened institutions, Singapore’s leverage diminishes. The pressure to choose sides intensifies.
Economic Model at Risk
Singapore’s open economy thrives on global trade governed by predictable rules. The city-state has invested heavily in free trade agreements and has championed multilateral trading systems. American withdrawal from international institutions threatens the rules-based trading order that Singapore relies upon. Fragmentation into competing economic blocs would force difficult choices and potentially reduce Singapore’s role as a neutral hub.
ASEAN’s Fragility
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations has relied on US engagement to balance Chinese influence in the region. As Washington retreats, Beijing’s gravitational pull strengthens. Singapore, as an ethnic Chinese-majority state in Southeast Asia, faces particular sensitivity around perceptions of Chinese alignment. ASEAN’s cohesion may fray as member states make different calculations about their relationships with Beijing.
Defense and Deterrence
While Singapore maintains robust military capabilities and close defense ties with the US, its ultimate security depends on the credibility of American commitments to regional allies. As the US withdraws from international institutions and signals reduced global engagement, allies must question whether Washington will honor security commitments when tested. This uncertainty may drive destabilizing arms races or dangerous accommodation with revisionist powers.
Singapore’s Strategic Response
Facing this uncertain future, Singapore has several pathways:
Institutional Leadership: Singapore could partially fill the void left by American retreat, championing multilateral institutions and rules-based order. As a respected middle power with a reputation for competence, Singapore’s voice carries weight. However, this role requires resources and carries risks of antagonizing great powers.
Enhanced Defense Autonomy: Accelerating military modernization and developing more autonomous defense capabilities could reduce dependence on American security guarantees. Yet Singapore’s small size limits how much security it can purchase unilaterally.
Deeper Regional Integration: Strengthening ASEAN and building Southeast Asian institutional capacity could create collective security and economic resilience. However, ASEAN’s consensus model and diverse membership make bold action difficult.
Pragmatic Accommodation: Singapore might quietly shift toward greater accommodation with China while maintaining formal non-alignment. This path risks long-term sovereignty concerns and alienating other partners.
Most likely, Singapore will pursue all these strategies simultaneously, hedging against an uncertain future while hoping for renewed American engagement that may never materialize.
The Broader Implications
The US withdrawal from UN entities represents more than a budget-cutting exercise. It signals a fundamental reorientation of American grand strategy away from the institutional leadership that defined Pax Americana. The consequences extend far beyond the organizations directly affected:
Norm Erosion: International norms around human rights, environmental protection, and gender equality lose their most powerful enforcer. Authoritarian regimes feel emboldened to challenge these standards.
Institutional Decay: Without American funding and engagement, many international institutions will struggle to maintain effectiveness, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that validates withdrawal.
Competitor Empowerment: China and other rising powers gain relative influence as American retreat creates vacuums of leadership and funding.
Alliance Uncertainty: American allies must recalculate their security arrangements, potentially leading to nuclear proliferation, regional arms races, or dangerous accommodations with adversaries.
Economic Fragmentation: The liberal trading order fractures into competing blocs, reducing overall prosperity and increasing conflict potential.
Conclusion: An Unsteady Transition
History rarely moves in clean breaks. The end of Pax Americana will not arrive in a single dramatic moment but through accumulation of small withdrawals, broken commitments, and eroding credibility. The UN withdrawal is one more data point in this gradual dissolution.
For small, trade-dependent states like Singapore, this transition creates profound challenges. The coming decades will test whether Singapore’s legendary pragmatism and adaptability can navigate a world without a stabilizing hegemon. The prosperity and security that Singaporeans have known for two generations depended on an international order that is now unraveling.
The question is not whether American hegemony will end—all empires eventually do. The question is what comes after. Will a new hegemon rise to provide stability? Will a multipolar balance emerge? Or will the world descend into the competitive chaos that characterized earlier eras?
For Singapore and the broader international community, the stakes could not be higher. The institutions that America is abandoning represented humanity’s best attempt to prevent the catastrophic conflicts that marked the first half of the 20th century. Their weakening comes at a moment when global challenges—climate change, pandemics, migration, nuclear proliferation—demand cooperation rather than fragmentation.
The American withdrawal from the United Nations may be remembered not as a prudent retrenchment but as the moment when the post-war order’s collapse became inevitable. For those who prospered under Pax Americana, what follows remains deeply uncertain.