A year of Trump: The exit of norms and the rise of transactional power

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Park So-young

The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo. 

U.S. President Donald Trump is marking the first anniversary of his inauguration today. Over the past year, “America First” has evolved from a campaign slogan into a force reshaping the global order. Rules, institutions and alliances long upheld by the United States since the Cold War have steadily weakened, replaced by a logic of deals, pressure and coercion. Under Trump, the United States no longer presents itself as a global arbiter or guardian of norms.

Tariffs were the first tool Trump reached for after taking office. China was not the only target. The European Union, Canada, Mexico, Korea and Japan all faced punitive measures. High tariffs on key industries such as steel, automobiles and semiconductors were justified in the name of “national security.” Trump openly warned that countries failing to invest in the United States would pay a price. Foreign negotiating teams were summoned to the Oval Office, where pledged investment figures were displayed, transforming the White House into a venue for high-stakes transactions.

Trump has consistently described himself as a peacemaker. He pledged to end wars around the world “immediately,” citing conflicts including the war in Ukraine and the fighting in Gaza. Yet his approach has centered less on mediation than on recalibrating power. Ukraine was pressed toward a cease-fire, while Israel received what amounted to a blank check. Behind the language of peace lay a clear calculation: Reduce America’s burden while maximizing its leverage.

That logic reached its most controversial point in Venezuela. The Trump administration carried out a military operation that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his spouse, who were transferred to stand trial in the United States. The administration argued that Maduro was linked to large-scale drug trafficking into the United States. Much of the international community, however, viewed the operation as a violation of sovereignty and a display of raw power. By stepping outside the framework of international law, the episode set a dangerous precedent of direct punishment for states deemed noncompliant.

Trump’s worldview is often distilled in his own words. In a recent interview with The New York Times, he remarked that “international law isn’t necessary” and that only his personal sense of morality restrained him. The statement reflected a belief that individual judgment can override international norms. Since his first term, Trump has defended his approach by urging other countries to prioritize their own interests. The result has been to create strategic space for authoritarian military powers such as Russia and China.

The shock waves have even reached the Arctic. A Danish-led military exercise known as “Operation Arctic Patience,” prompted by renewed controversy over Greenland, offered a striking symbol. France, Germany and Norway, among other NATO members, participated without U.S. forces. The drill was widely interpreted as a declaration of Europe’s intention to pursue greater security autonomy rather than rely solely on the American umbrella. Washington responded with threats of additional tariffs. Europe countered with retaliatory measures of its own. Former allies increasingly find themselves facing one another across an economic battlefield.

The fragmentation of alliances is now affecting North America itself. Canada, which had once stood on the front line of confrontation with China during the Huawei dispute back in 2018, announced a “new strategic partnership” with Beijing last week. The move sent shock waves through diplomatic circles and underscored how Trump-style unilateralism has hollowed out traditional alliances.

For Korea, the rapidly shifting global environment presents increasingly complex choices. The Korea-U. S. alliance remains the core pillar of national security, but the assumption that it automatically guarantees national interests is no longer realistic. When the United States prioritizes transactions over norms, even allies can become negotiating counterparts rather than protected partners.

Korea must move beyond declarations and build practical cooperation with like-minded middle powers. Coordination with Japan, Australia and the European Union should be translated into concrete action in areas such as supply chain stability, defense cooperation and the setting of technology standards. At the same time, Korea should expand diplomatic space with countries in the Global South amid intensifying U.S.-China rivalry. India, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America are no longer peripheral but emerging centers of economic and diplomatic gravity.

Diversifying options across the economy, security and diplomacy has become urgent. Excessive dependence on any single country or market quickly turns into strategic vulnerability. Korea must pursue a balance between self-reliance and cooperation in energy, food, critical minerals and advanced technologies. Defense policy, too, should be redesigned to emphasize greater strengthening from within, using alliances as leverage rather than as a substitute for national capability.

There is a historic irony in the current moment. This year marks the 250th anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence. A nation born in resistance to unjust taxation by the British Empire now seeks to shape the world through tariffs and pressure. The United States appears to be dismantling the very order of free trade and shared rules that it once built and championed.

Attention now turns to the U.S. midterm elections in November. They will test whether American society can restore institutional checks and self-correction or whether Trump’s worldview will be further entrenched. The first year of Trump’s presidency has made one reality unmistakably clear. The world no longer stands solely on an order designed by the United States. Countries that fail to adapt to this shift risk becoming the next subject of a deal rather than a partner in shaping the rules.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.