Overview
The G20 will convene next weekend in Johannesburg, the final session before South Africa hands over the presidency to the US – whose chair will be empty this year. President Trump has decided to boycott the summit, a decision that demonstrates the US’ changing approach to the global community as Washington deprioritizes multilateral forums that do not align with its strategic objectives.
President Trump’s second-term foreign policy has not fully abandoned multilateralism but instead uses a selective engagement strategy — choosing between multilateral, bilateral, and unilateral approaches based on their alignment with US priorities. The administration avoids multilateral forums whose agendas conflict with its economic, energy, or security goals (e.g., COP30, certain G20 initiatives) while participating in those that advance strategic objectives (e.g., NATO, G7, ASEAN). Bilateral engagements are leveraged for targeted trade and security gains, while unilateral actions — notably in tariffs and counternarcotics operations — assert US dominance but strain alliances. This approach is reshaping global leadership dynamics: allies are increasing self-reliant, rivals like China are filling vacuums in climate and renewable energy leadership, and multilateral institutions face fragmentation. Bottom line — where the US chooses to lead, it demands primacy; where priorities diverge, it withdraws or acts alone, reinforcing a hard-power-centric vision of American foreign policy.
Multilateralism vs Bilateralism: Selective Engagement for Selective Outcomes
It has been 300 days since President Trump started his second term and, despite warnings from some analysts, the Trump administration has not abandoned multilateralism, or at least not completely. Rather, the Trump administration has engaged counterparts in bilateral and multilateral platforms, selecting the type based on what is likely to advance US priorities rather than traditional geopolitical norms.
The G20 is the leading forum for international economic cooperation, emphasizing collective responsibility in fostering sustainable and inclusive global growth, in addition to managing global economic risks. As such, the premise of the G20 does not align with President Trump’s economic priorities, which are narrowly focused on advancing American economic strength, not global development. President Trump believes too great a burden has been placed on the American taxpayer by foreign aid and development funding and, more broadly, in programs that benefit foreign countries more than Americans, leaving the US in debt and American businesses disadvantaged. Furthermore, the Trump administration disagreed with the principles of some of the working groups in the run up to the summit, opposing language, for example, in draft joint declarations on energy transition (which the administration rejects conceptually as oil and gas exports are major components of American economic strength) and global health (on which the administration disputes the ideal of universal health care subsidies).
Similarly, the Trump administration declined to send an official delegation to COP30, the climate conference held in Brazil this year. A White House statement noted that President Trump is directly engaging with leaders on energy issues while Energy Secretary Chris Wright described climate change as “essentially a hoax.” Underlying this disengagement is President Trump’s disagreement with the premise of climate change and his announcement that the US will exit the Paris climate agreement, which structures COP summit agendas, for a second time.
The White House has not entirely eschewed multilateral engagements, however. Where the administration sees value in collective action, President Trump and senior government officials participate in multilateral gatherings. For example, Secretary of State Rubio attended the G7 foreign ministerial in Canada last week. Composed of seven major industrialized nations, the forum resulted in policy agreements and actions related to the Ukraine war, countering sanctions evasion by substandard vessels, the ceasefire plan for Gaza, restraining Chinese aggression in the East China Sea and the South China Sea, building on the G7 Critical Minerals Action Plan for resilient supply chains, and ending violence and stabilizing Haiti, Sudan and DRC. While some of these matters had greater priority than others for the US, the US agreed to the final joint statement as a shared agenda.
President Trump also participated in the 13th annual US-ASEAN Summit meeting in Malaysia in late October. The US joined ASEAN member states in a “Leaders’ Joint Vision Statement to Promote Stronger, Safer and More Prosperous ASEAN and America.” The statement pledges increased security cooperation (including combating online scams, maritime security and freedom of navigation) and trade cooperation through the US-ASEAN Trade and Investment Framework Arrangement and two-way investment, etc. On the margins of the summit, President Trump held bilateral meetings that resulted in trade agreements with Malaysia and Cambodia, along with framework agreements with Thailand and Vietnam.
For European allies, perhaps the single most important multilateral institution today is NATO, given the Ukraine War and the threat to European security from a revisionist Russia. The Trump administration remains committed to the NATO charter, after the members agreed to dramatically increase their financial commitments to better balance burden-sharing.
When Unilateralism Trumps Multilateralism and Bilateralism
President Trump has established a pattern of taking bold executive action and making subsequent adjustments if deemed necessary. This has been on display in trade policy with the unilateral imposition of reciprocal tariffs on most trading partners. Many but not all initial tariffs have since been adjusted following bilateral trade negotiations, but President Trump was successful in unilaterally setting a tariff floor at 15% for most countries, despite the best efforts of negotiating teams to whittle it down to zero. Imposing tariffs on close partners and allies has generated widespread tensions in bilateral relationships and these have spilled over into multilateral forums.
Unilateralism is also currently on display in the administration’s counternarcotics initiative in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. The US military is targeting suspected drug smugglers, sinking and disabling ships in open waters. The operations are part of President Trump’s day one promise to stop the flow of fentanyl and other illegal drugs into the US. Uncomfortable with US tactics, a number of the US’ traditional partners in counternarcotics operations (France, Canada, Netherlands, Panama) are distancing themselves, with public statements that they are not involved, nor do they support the US actions.
Implications for America’s Global Leadership Role
The international community is grappling with how to respond to the changes in style and priorities of the Trump administration within multilateral forums. In some forums, countries are taking up abandoned leadership roles; in some, they are seeking to move forward without the US; and in others, cooperation is limited to selective issues of alignment. This could result in increased uncertainty, dissidence and fracturing in leadership of global politics and economics.
China has stepped into a leadership role at COP30, filling the void left by the US and showcasing its dominance in clean energy technology. Chinese companies have an oversized presence, with a large pavilion occupying prime space near the entrance, while Chinese diplomats are leaning in, using the country’s convening power and influence to press divergent interests towards agreements. Beijing has a unique type of credibility because of the new technologies Chinese companies are rolling out that are rapidly advancing the renewable energy sector. While the country remains the world’s top polluter, but its championing of energy transition – where it has a strategic advantage – wins its influence.
The future direction and impact of the G20 is up in the air. While South Africa is pressing forward on its agenda of debt sustainability, energy transition and climate resilience in developing countries, influential heads of state will not be attending, including Chinese President Xi, Russian President Putin (due to an ICC arrest warrant), Argentine President Milei and Mexican President Sheinbaum. In the coming year under a US presidency, the forum could be neglected or refocused on American priorities.
Unilateral American actions in the Caribbean and Latin America risk the cohesion of joint operations with regional and European powers that have been the mainstay of counternarcotics operations over the past decade. While the US can argue that multilateral efforts have not been successful in stemming the flow of drugs into the US, a breakdown of the coalition risks opening up enforcement gaps that traffickers can exploit and that the US, on its own, will be unable to counter. However, a more forceful US policy and military presence could induce states in the region to do more to clamp down on trafficking bases in their jurisdictions, if only to protect their sovereignty.
In NATO, the Europeans are enhancing their role, increasing their defense leadership, not so much to fill a US leadership void, but to protect their interests and keep the US committed to mutual defense. European countries have increased defense spending commitments, expanded military readiness, are investing in building out the European defense industrial base, and idea of strategic autonomy from the US is being normalized in defense circles.
While the shift in priorities and style in Washington is creating space for alternative leadership, it is apparent that President Trump seeks to assume the top role in areas where he wants the US to lead, rather than be one among equals. The exertion of raw US power may rankle, but it is a reminder that the Trump administration views America’s strength as based on its hard power, whether economic, military or political.
Risks for business are case dependent, as the US still engages multilaterally when it clearly serves national interests. Therefore, businesses should closely follow the US when anticipating the international policy pulse. In the short-term, there are upside risks for politically-sensitive industries, such as extractive sectors or tech, which will receive the backing of the US, whether that means negotiating investment deals or pausing international regulatory oversight. However, in the long-term, this could introduce policy uncertainty.
