America Reimagined

Traditionally viewed as a leader in upholding a rules-based international order, the U.S. saw its global role fundamentally challenged during Donald Trump’s first presidency. Trump’s “America First” approach disrupted international cooperation and undermined key pillars of global U.S. leadership, challenging longstanding commitments to multilateralism and international law. Although global institutions and the international legal order remained largely intact, they were strained by Trump’s foreign policies. In a second Trump presidency guided by Project 2025 – a meticulously crafted blueprint aimed at transforming U.S. domestic and foreign policy from day one – the U.S. could see sweeping changes that risk further eroding its commitment to international norms and legal frameworks.

Project 2025, developed by the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, is a four-pillared plan intended to guide the next Republican administration in “rescu[ing] the country from the grip of the radical Left”. At the heart of the plan is the ultra-conservative Republican Manifesto titled ‘Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise’. The involvement of over 140 individuals from his previous administration signals its likely impact, despite Trump’s attempt to distance himself from the plan.

Based on the proposals of Trump’s campaign and Project 2025 in the areas of migration, international security, trade, and international cooperation, we are gauging how another Trump term could shape the international rules-based order and detach the U.S. from the international system.

Migration: Erosion of International Human Rights Protections

Trump’s proposed changes to U.S. immigration policy raise significant concerns about compliance with international human rights law. Central to the plan is “the largest deportation operation in American history”, which would entail mass deportations without due process hearings and the dismantling of the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman. Such measures risk violating the right of access to courts and the requirements of lawful expulsion, enshrined in the 1951 Refugee Convention. Moreover, plans to reclassify immigration judges as national security personnel and decertify their union further threaten the independence of the judicial system, undermining the rule of law in immigration proceedings.

The ‘Mandate for Leadership’ also introduces policies that would severely limit asylum opportunities, including repealing immigration benefits for unaccompanied minors and the removal of gang and domestic violence as valid grounds for asylum. It advocates eliminating visas for victims of severe human trafficking and empowering Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain migrants for minor offenses such as driving under the influence. The revival of the ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy, which denies the right to seek asylum to migrants who passed through other countries en route to the U.S. without seeking asylum there, would violate both U.S. domestic law and international law, particularly the principle of non-refoulement under customary international law and the 1951 Refugee Convention Refugees.

Trump’s influence on GOP opposition to immigration reform highlights a continuing unwillingness to resolve migration challenges constructively. After Trump lobbied GOP members, they opposed a bipartisan bill so he could continue to criticize incumbent President Biden’s immigration policy. Moreover, reports of potential bans on entry from select Muslim-majority countries, justified by alleged public health emergencies, raise concerns about religious discrimination and the violation of the principle of non-discrimination, another fundamental tenet of international human rights law.

In the context of increasing hostility towards migrants, these policies signal a retreat from the U.S.’s historical commitment to human rights and the rule of law embedded in a liberal internationalist grand strategy. A second Trump administration would likely further erode U.S. standing as a self-proclaimed champion of human rights, undermining international protections for vulnerable individuals.

Security and Trade: Undermining International Legal Norms

Trump’s approach to foreign policy, characterized by transactional diplomacy and an overt willingness to sidestep legal norms, poses significant challenges to the international legal order. One of the most controversial moments of Trump’s first term was his attempt to withhold financial support to Ukraine in exchange for political concessions, such as demanding investigations into Joe Biden and his son. This maneuver strained U.S.-Ukraine relations and violated international norms prohibiting coercion in foreign relations.

In a second term, Trump’s transactional approach to foreign aid, particularly with respect to Ukraine, could undermine fundamental international legal principles. His calls for Republicans to withhold aid to Ukraine in late 2023 underscore this risk. Seeking to appease Russia at the expense of Ukraine, this stance disregards the prohibition on the unlawful use of force and the protection of territorial sovereignty. JD Vance’s vision for resolving the conflict – allowing Russia to retain all Ukrainian territory it currently occupies – sends a truly dangerous signal to Putin.

In the Middle East, Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and relocate the U.S. embassy triggered violence, exacerbating tensions and leaving over 50 dead and 2,000 injured. His administration’s endorsement of Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land defied international consensus and disregarded two International Court of Justice Advisory Opinions. By encouraging Israel to hit Iran’s nuclear facilities and vowing to halt aid to Palestine if re-elected, Trump is fueling the flames in the Middle Eastern conflict and complicating efforts for peace.

On trade, Trump has outlined proposals that challenge the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the global trading system, including the Trump Reciprocal Trade Act, which would allow the president to unilaterally impose tariffs, and a blanket 10% duty on all imports. Furthermore, the Trump campaign plans to revoke China’s status as a most favored nation, leaving it free to impose tariffs of 60% or more. Such measures would likely provoke significant international legal challenges and risk further eroding the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism. Free trade is often seen as a precursor to stability and the development of international norms, whereas trade wars seldom achieve their intended outcome and tend to spark new conflicts.

These policies reflect a broader disdain for multilateralism and the rules-based international order. Trump’s willingness to engage in trade wars, disregard established trade laws, and prioritize short-term political gains over long-term international stability raises concerns about the U.S.’s future role in global governance. A second Trump administration could lead to a more fragmented and unstable international order, as other nations might follow the U.S.’s example in sidestepping legal frameworks.

U.S. Democratic Institutions: Weakening International Cooperation

One of the most alarming aspects of another Trump term is its potential impact on U.S. democratic institutions and their ability to engage with international law. Trump’s plans to overhaul federal staffing could dramatically alter the landscape of U.S. governance. Whether it be the Department of Justice or immigration judges, Trump plans to discharge large swaths of legal and administrative professionals in exchange for staunch political allies under Schedule F. Up to 50,000 federal employees could lose their employment protections, leaving them vulnerable to firing without recourse to legal appeal. Aside from being associated with lower performance, decreased responsiveness and higher corruption, removing neutral facilitators of policy in favor of ideological proponents has serious implications for the U.S.’s willingness and ability to adhere to international norms. By replacing legal and administrative professionals with political appointees, the U.S. risks undermining the independence of its institutions, including those responsible for upholding international legal commitments.

During Trump’s first term, career officials often acted as a buffer, moderating some of his more extreme instincts. However, under Schedule F, this moderating influence could disappear, leaving the U.S. vulnerable to a governance structure dominated by political loyalists. This shift could have significant implications for the U.S.’s willingness and ability to adhere to international legal norms. The plans of a second Trump term are a deflection of the decades-old doctrine of liberal internationalism. The U.S. is not interested in reforming an international order that it no longer deems to be serving its interests, but in abandoning it in favor of unchecked national sovereignty. For instance, Trump has announced he would withdraw from the Paris Agreement once again. The withdrawal of the U.S. from the international system means it will be harder to bind the U.S. to international law and hold them to account for violations thereof.

Conclusion: A Critical Moment for International Law

A potential second Trump presidency could mark a significant shift in U.S. domestic and foreign policy, with far-reaching implications for the international legal order. The willingness to sidestep established legal frameworks in favor of unchecked national sovereignty threatens to weaken the international rules-based system and erode the credibility of multilateral institutions at a time of great uncertainty, as global governance continues to shift away from post-Cold War unipolarity towards a multipolar order.

This looming threat has led to unexpected alliances, such as the U.S. Supreme Court enabling President Biden to overturn Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy and the bipartisan U.S. Climate Alliance advancing the goals of the Paris Agreement at the state level. These examples demonstrate the potential for states, international lawyers and courts, NGOs, and civil societies to take on more active and meaningful roles in stabilizing the international order. Where the U.S. waivers in its commitment to international law, these actors can demonstrate confidence and stability by placing trust in international institutions and honoring legally binding agreements. While the future of the international legal order will undoubtedly be shaped by the new administration, a collective resolve might nonetheless be incremental to ensure that international legal commitments remain strong and reliable.