The Exceptionality of Trump’s Pax Americana
Trump’s vision for the new world order is based on realism and geopolitics, but also on U.S. foundational ideals and goodwill in defending the West.
An important recent article titled “Trump’s Augustan Moment” by the German politician Maximilian Krah has captured the attention of pundits and commentators. The author analyzes the new global restructuring — a Trumpian Pax Americana. The article suggests an implicit comparison with Pax Romana and Emperor Augustus’ takeover of Rome’s republican institutions and his momentous reorganization of the existing world order.
While I agree with Krah that Trump is redefining global politics along realistic lines and shifting away from the Western European over-reliance on transnational organizations and “international law,” I believe there is much more to Trump’s vision than Realpolitik. Trump’s doctrine is not a mere return to a balancing act between several Great Powers, which would divide the world into their respective spheres of influence.
The new doctrine employs the “art-of-the-deal” as a masterful strategy on the global chessboard and acknowledges the importance of honest realism in politics. But it is also a moral philosophy of principled realism. It does not simply revive the maxim “Might is Right,” but rather, it affirms “the Might of the Right,” with the United States as a global hegemon and a tough but just player.
Trump’s doctrine acknowledges the futility of trying to export democracy or woke ideology around the world at the expense of U.S. taxpayers, especially in places where such efforts are unwanted and would never succeed. It capitalizes on the effectiveness of interest-based negotiations. It realizes that the tyrannical powers of the world respond only to the language of strength and defer to sheer power and raw military and economic might.
However, this new world order does not mean that the United States would abandon its strategic allies outside the Western Hemisphere. The vision for the new Board of Peace promises that America will remain the decisive force in global conflict resolution and will be consulted and respected by the other major actors on the world stage. American dominance would be the most reliable guarantee for the survival of Western civilization.
The biggest problem with the post-national and transnational utopian vision of the globalist leftist elites is not their nominal attachment to liberal values. It is their abandonment and betrayal of Western civilization. It is the military, economic, and cultural suicide the West has been committing, both wittingly and unwittingly, over the past several decades. This civilizational suicide accelerated rapidly in the present century and affected multiple areas of life, from ruining flourishing economies with deindustrialization and destructive net-zero policies to extinguishing any smoldering scintillas of civilizational or national pride by promoting a hopelessly biased and pernicious historical narrative.
Trump’s vision for the new world order is based on realism and geopolitics, but also on U.S. foundational ideals and goodwill in defending the West. This is the exceptionality of the new Pax Americana. Trump remarked at the recent Davos gathering that he liked the potential of the U.N. but not what the organization has become. As early as 1946, in his unforgettable Iron Curtain speech, Churchill warned about the danger of turning the U.N. into a feckless and corrupt institution:
A world organisation has already been erected for the prime purpose of preventing war, UNO, the successor of the League of Nations, with the decisive addition of the United States and all that that means, is already at work. We must make sure that its work is fruitful, that it is a reality and not a sham, that it is a force for action, and not merely a frothing of words, that it is a true temple of peace in which the shields of many nations can some day be hung up, and not merely a cockpit in a Tower of Babel.
In a fascinating recent essay, Ayaan Hirsi Ali warned against the subversion of the West by the “twin forces of cultural Marxism and an expansionist political Islam:”
The question, of course, is who is doing the subverting. Who is trying to unravel America and the West? … The first [force is]: American Marxists. This category includes old card-carrying communists, red-diaper baby socialists, antifa anarchists, and many of whom we now call woke…. The second force is the radical Islamists, who are riding the coattails of the communists to power…. The third force is the Chinese Communist Party…. The[se forces] have wisely chosen the same common enemy: the West.
Trump’s Pax Americana is the most viable effort to withstand these attacks and preserve the West. Negotiating from the position of unapologetic strength keeps our enemies at bay while defending our allies and encouraging their own empowerment. Churchill’s remarks in his “Iron Curtain” speech 80 years ago about America’s unique role and responsibility as the primary global leader are even more relevant today:
The United States stands at this time at the pinnacle of world power. It is a solemn moment…. For with primacy in power is also joined an awe-inspiring accountability to the future.
Nora D. Clinton is a Research Scholar at the Legal Insurrection Foundation. She was born and raised in Sofia, Bulgaria. She holds a PhD in Classics and has published extensively on ancient documents on stone. In 2020, she authored the popular memoir Quarantine Reflections Across Two Worlds. Nora is a co-founder of two partner charities dedicated to academic cooperation and American values. She lives in Northern Virginia with her husband and son.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Combine the Pax Americana with the new Donroe Doctrine, and you will witness the rise of the phoenix, the rebuilding of the “shining city on a hill” of Reagan fame.
No wonder the Demsocialists, globalists and other leftists hate him so. But ask the real people, such as the Venezuelans who have finally found a path to liberation, or the residents of DC, who can actually go outside their houses on a warm evening again.
It is important from here on to keep Democrats out of positions of power as well as back sliding RINOs.
If we can. It’ll be a tough job.
.
I believe RINOs pose a far greater risk to the Republic than the Marxist Democrats. The Dems tell you what they want to do, then pursue their plan with vigor. The RINOs? They LIE TO US, and never fulfill their promises. They must be cast out!
But the Democrats are busy, energetic, and implacable enemies, like wasps or wolverines. RINOs are lazy and covert, like raccoons or coyotes. Give me raccoons or coyotes to deal with any day.
uhhh he needs to make sure the lefty revo in america is stopped now
Thanks again, Nora.
You continue to be a great addition to this group.
Ms. Clinton’s article presents a very interesting discussion about the meaning of the international policies undertaken recently by Pres. Trump (“Trump”), the philosophy the writer ascribes to it and its implications moving forward. I would like to present a civilized dissent maybe from her interpretation and, if I am wrong and she is right about the interpretation, about the implications of Trump’s policies. Such discussions are difficult these days because those who disagree with Trump are called anti-Trumpers and their arguments fall on deaf ears, while those who agree with Trump are also called many epithets and, again, their arguments are not heard. So, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali (“Ali”) notes in the article cited by Ms. Clinton, people simply refrain from speaking up. It’s part of the demoralization piece.
But I guess I will take my chances.
I will refer to Ali’s and Maximilian Krah’s (“Krah”) articles, which are cited by Ms. Clinton, but I will also refer to the speech given on 20 Jan 2026 at Davos by Canadian PM Mark Carney (“Carney”) which has received attention and deals with a lot of these issues.
Ms. Clinton’s thesis is that there is a breakdown in what has been referred to in the “rules based international order”, which was a Potemkin Village to begin with. She believes that Trump has a vision of a New World Order, played out on a global chessboard based upon a “moral philosophy of principled realism”. Trump sees the US (as she reads him) not only a global “hegemon” (I hate that word…it comes from leftists) but as a tough but “just” player. It is clear that Ms. Clinton sees this as a generally positive development because this idea of a Trumpian “Pax Americana” is the “most viable” way to guarantee the “survival of western civilization”.
Ms. Clinton make a number of important points with which I agree strongly. I support western civilization and the western enlightenment and the values it has brought to the world. I agree that there is a threat to western civilization and when I read Ms. Clinton point that the left’s abandonment of western values as a cause of this I concur wholeheartedly. But that is only part of the problem. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali notes, the subversion is not only from the domestic left, but from Islamism and state communism (read: China). (To further understand the Islamist threat I recommend a riveting interview of Raymond Ibrahim on the Triggernometry podcast. It is lengthy but not to be missed). I would add that this is exacerbated by the fecklessness of our “leaders”, be they political, religious, educational or in the media.
The problem I have with Trump’s (and Ms. Clinton’s) solution, is that I believe strongly that these threats must be confronted by principles, facts and logical arguments, not by some fiat where a new world order is slapped down like a template. And my view of Trump is that he has no principles or ideals, only goals and objectives. This is why with Trump (unlike for example with Secty. of State Marco Rubio (“Rubio”)) you never hear the articulation of reasoning behind a decision. One only hears the goal and the decision. For example, with the arrest of Nicolas Maduro, Rubio explains the legalities behind the arrest…Trump just says, “We’re going to run the country.” In tis there is no “moral philosophy” or realism. Only objectives. I would say that the evidence of this is clear throughout Trump’s presidencies. He will make a “deal” and abandon what were thought to be principles in the aid of a goal. Pro-lifers feel abandoned, Israel has questions (I thought Hamas had to disarm before Phase 2 in Gaza…now they are forever), Iranians thought he would help them get their country back, but now Trump is angling for nuclear deal. It goes on. We need to be realistic about Trump. He does not have a philosophy, he has objectives. And his Pax Americana would operate like that.
This is important because of the key point of Ali’s argument is that in accordance with Bezmanov’s outline, subversion of society starts with “demoralization”. This is essentially the inability of the society to defend the basic, underlying values of that society. Simply stating by some form of decree that there is a New World Order and that some Board of Peace will now look after things, will not address the underlying subversion by demoralization that we are witnessing all across the west. This is, to an extent, because it is not based on any principle or rule. As Ms. Clinton and Mr. Krah state, it is based on American power. The internal decay would continue. This is a band-aid. So, what happens in three years when Trump is gone? Maybe VP J.D. Vance (“Vance”) or Rubio will carry on, but who knows? What if it’s Newsome? Or AOC? How will this work then?
Krah and Carney, surprisingly, concur with each other, in that we are seeing the demise of the Rules Based International Order. When Krah dismisses those who lament its disappearance I thought he might be referring to Carney who seems to be suggesting a sort of more fluid form of rules-based order.
This is where my second point of dissent comes in. If the Rules Based Order is going away, I do not agree that it is a positive development. Why?
Krah noted that the seeds of the state system (sovereignty and inviolability of internal affairs) were planted in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia. This principle has been the foundation of the international system for going on 380 years. I argue that it has been enforced and that its violation has led to the worst wars in history. The enforcement has not been through courts but by states themselves saying it must be upheld. It is why WW I started…the defence of Serbia from Austria Hungary, it is why the world expelled Iraq from Kuwait, it is why the invasion of Georgia by Russia is still sanctioned, the invasion of Northern Cyprus by Turkey is still not recognized and why the Russian invasions of Ukraine (2013) and Eastern Ukraine (2022) are resisted and sanctioned by all countries.
One notable effort to bypass the Peace of Westphalia system resulted in a calamity. In 1938 the big European powers forced Czechoslovakia to cede territory to Germany under Hitler’s threats of war. To get “peace in our time” a country’s borders were legally changed under threat of force. The result? The next year, assuming that borders would no longer be defended, Hitler invaded Poland, and history’s biggest war began.
That is why Trump’s Ukrainian “peace deal” is resisted. While stopping deaths and getting “peace in our time” (again?) the reality would cede Ukrainian territory to an aggressor. Once that is in place, the rule is gone, and we are in 1938 territory once again. I do not suggest Russia will invade Europe (at least not immediately) but what principle would stop China from invading Kashmir or Nepal? India from invading Sri Lanka. And the list goes on. Nothing apart from their own unilateral assessment about whether they can do it.
And so, I dissent. These rules are important and must be upheld. I think Ms. Clinton’s reference to Ali’s article is inspired and I thank her for it. But while Ms. Clinton’s quote focuses on the “who” is doing the subversion, I am focused on the “how”. I think that the demoralization is deep and is the reason Trump, Krah and others feel that we need to just go with a new system. Carney wants a sliding set of agreements while Krah wants to recognize US dominance. Trump just wants to be in charge.
The dystopian results of Trump’s approach were demonstrated by what happened after Carney’s Davos speech. Canada’s invitation to the Board of Peace was revoked. In one sense it was good for Israel…Carney is so anti-Israel that I am glad he’s out. Who needs another Erdogan? But on the other hand, we see this theoretical international organization/board of leaders whose membership seems to be determined by whether or not Trump likes them or agrees with them. Indeed, it is referred to in the possessive (“President Trump’s Board of Peace”). What is that? A group of leaders or a private club? Respectfully, this is not a valid replacement for (or evolution of) the rules based international system. It will not be a “Pax Americana” because it will lead to resistance, instability and conflict and, in the absence of rules such as those that grew out of The Peace of Westphalia, wars of expansion and of blocs.
We must resist the demoralization that the subversion of our civilizational values has led to. This means we must not abandon those values and must stick to the rules that have worked to date. Sometimes it will be hard. We don’t always like the decisions of the WTO. Maybe the ICC was a bridge too far. Maybe the UN is corrupt. (Maybe???) But when I see the operations of the Board of Peace and wonder what it will be, not only under Trump but after he is gone, I think maybe let’s stay with the UN.
I apologize for having gone on at such length. I hope no one takes offence at any of my points, or thinks I was writing as an attack on any leader (esp. Trump or Carney). I was not. I was only expressing some ideas that I think are worth considering by those who may believe “Pax Americana” is a laudable goal. Just remember this: Krah writes about Trump’s Augustus moment, but it was when Caesar crossed the Rubicon that the rot that killed Rome began its infection.
“And my view of Trump is that he has no principles or ideals, only goals and objectives. This is why with Trump … you never hear the articulation of reasoning behind a decision. One only hears the goal and the decision. .. I would say that the evidence of this is clear throughout Trump’s presidencies. He will make a “deal” and abandon what were thought to be principles in the aid of a goal.”
I don’t agree with some of your other conclusions, but you have articulated this point expertly. No one knows this better than gun owners, who have received constant reassurances from Trump and yet have gotten consistently screwed absolutely every time Trump has made any binary decision on firearms issues.
More and more conservatives are noticing this now, in areas such as his unexpected foreign policy initiatives; his sudden reversals on issues like H1Bs, Epstein, and Chinese transfer students; and his inexplicable excursion into Pacific Palisades Reconstruction.
The man has goals, but no operating principles — and unlike principles, goals can turn on a dime.
Right. And this is one of my problems with the “Board of Peace”. If it is basically a club run by Trump, what happens as his goals change? Are the 20-30 odd “leaders” just supposed to go along with those changes? Will they? Unanimously? I doubt it, when you consider the personality types that become national leaders. So then you get fractures, politicking, dissent and conflict. And, having disposed of the “rules based international system”, what are we left with? That is my concern with what is being suggested. Maybe, by being ejected, Carney (and Canada) may have inadvertently dodged a bullet and revealed a weakness in the concept.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciated reading it.
Regards
BMacL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rj7xI3xmIAk
this video, Susan Kokinda delves into the connections between a Minneapolis shooting, the fallout from Davos, and a 170-year-old British playbook. Highlighting the end of America’s foreign regime-change policies under President Trump, Kokinda explains how British tactics of destabilization are now being used within the US. With figures like Rachel Sayre and Vice President JD Vance shedding light on engineered chaos in Minneapolis, the discussion extends to the historical context of Lord Palmerston’s strategies — tactics now resurfacing as Britain grapples with the decline of the postwar order. Tune in to understand how the new National Defense Strategy is redefining American priorities and why Minneapolis serves as ground zero for these covert operations.