President Trump’s recent assertion that “[he doesn’t] need international law” and that the only limit on his power abroad is his “own morality” marks a sharp break in United States (US) foreign policy and is a troubling signal for the future of the world order.
Careful observers have long pointed out that international affairs operate within a climate of legality. “Law talk” in international intercourse is too prominent to be brushed aside as empty rhetoric. Governments routinely justify their behaviour using the language of international law. International claims, and the responses to them, are typically framed in terms of legal rights and obligations. No government openly denies that international law constraints its conduct.
Remarkably, this has also been more or less true of great powers. This is not because they are disinterestedly devoted to the common good of the community of nations, but it is at least in part because international law is instrumentally useful to those able to deploy it strategically. Even the most powerful states cannot realistically bear the cost of constantly enforcing their privileges and preferences through sheer power alone. When a particular interest is translated into a rule of international law, the costs of enforcement drop significantly, relying on the generally realistic assumption that most states tend to comply with their legal obligations.
This system, however, works only if great powers are willing to play the game of reciprocity. In practice, this means that powerful states must exercise self-restraint, upholding international law even when doing so requires them to forgo immediate interests they have the material capacity to pursue. This blend of what the political scientist Michael Taylor called “short-term altruism” and “long- term self interest” is essential to the normal operation of international law.
The culture in which these assumptions were once taken for granted is going through a steady erosion. Particularly troubling is the growing tendency to prioritise, in foreign policy, what Arnold Wolfers famously described as “possession goals” over “milieu goals”. Seeking specific rights, advantages, or privileges is a normal feature of the foreign policy of any rational state. The problem arises when these pursuits totally disregard “the shape of the environment in which the nation operates”.
American presidents of both parties have, at times, shown blatant disregard for fundamental rules of international law prohibiting the use of force in international relations or the intervention in internal affairs of other countries — rules that lie at the heart of the post–World War II legal order. Yet what sets this administration apart is its apparent conviction that international law is simply irrelevant to the conduct of US foreign policy. Indeed, international law has not featured prominently in the administration’s discourse.
Much of the appeal of international law for states lies in its legitimising power. Nations invoke international law to frame their claims and actions because legality confers legitimacy. To dismiss international law as irrelevant to foreign policy is not merely an empty gesture; it exposes an administration completely fixated on “possession goals” and severely weakens the very environment in which the United States operates.
Photo: VENEZUELA, Caracas. A demon- strator holds a banner during a march in Caracas to demand the release of deposed Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores. 13 January 2026. Juan BARRETO/ AFP
