Will Trump’s Voluntarism Lead to a Shift in the World’s Political Poles?

From Institutional Responsibility to the Personalized Management of Institutions

In 2025, immediately after assuming office as head of state, the political behavior of U.S. President Donald Trump was largely perceived as an expression of personalistic voluntarism and a certain sense of retribution for his four-year absence from the White House. His political style centered on his own statements—often contradictory or weakly substantiated—demonstrative conduct during meetings with officials and politicians, and economic protectionism implemented through large-scale tariff policies.

This view is presented by Valerii Korol and Hryhorii Liubovets, representatives of the NGO “Center for Communication and Content Security,” in their op-ed kindly provided to PromPolitInform.

At that stage, the phenomenon remained within the realm of personal political style, even if it triggered international tensions. However, in 2026 a qualitative shift is taking place: voluntarism is no longer merely an individual trait but begins to materialize within institutions. In other words, Trump’s transformation lies not only in a change of leadership behavior, but in a shift in the very architecture of political action.

One of the key signals has been a change in NATO’s internal dynamics—marked by a weakening of allied logic and the transformation of the Alliance. NATO systematically presents collective security as an allied system, yet the United States is increasingly stepping back from its leadership role. Moreover, in the case of Ukraine, the White House has created a mechanism for arms transfers and financial arrangements based on leveraging the U.S. monopoly on advanced weaponry. In doing so, the United States is effectively distancing itself from its traditional role as guarantor of the international order formed after World War II under the framework of the United Nations.

The radical reduction of financial support for Ukraine has become not only a budgetary decision but also a symbolic shift—more precisely, a withdrawal from strategic responsibility. As a result, alliances cease to function as normative communities, and security begins to be interpreted as a transaction.

A major new development is the creation by the U.S. president of parallel institutions—specifically, a “Peace Council” under the auspices of the “Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace.”

Here a fundamentally new logic emerges. This is not merely a new diplomatic platform, but an attempt to create an extra-systemic center of legitimacy; to position it as a symbolic overseer of the United Nations; and to personalize global governance.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, through his spokesperson Stephane Dujarric, was compelled to remind President Trump that oversight of the United Nations is exercised by member states through the General Assembly and the Security Council in accordance with the UN Charter.

In reality, a conflict between two models is emerging:

Trump’s subsequent statements further expand this logic:

• A U.S. claim to lead stabilization forces in Gaza;
• The formation of coalitions outside traditional alliances;
• Public attribution to himself of conflict-resolution outcomes achieved by other state leaders;
• Open signals of political patronage toward certain national leaders.

Thus, international politics increasingly operates not through institutions but through networks of personal loyalty. This signals a transition from populism to a personalized geopolitics of voluntarism.

At the same time:

• U.S. sanctions against Russia continue (reflecting institutional inertia);
• Negotiation signals regarding Iran have appeared;
• Allies, such as the United Kingdom, are beginning to limit military cooperation with the White House due to concerns over potential violations of international law.

This creates a situation of bifurcated U.S. foreign policy:

• Institutions operate according to the old logic;
• The political center acts according to a new, Trump-centered paradigm.

If the global order begins to be shaped by personal will, authoritarian regimes may gain indirect justification for their own behavior. A dangerous symmetry emerges: if international law becomes conditional, violence may be treated as an acceptable instrument. In this context, genocidal aggression against Ukraine risks ceasing to be an exception and instead becoming a new norm of global politics.

Accordingly, 2025 was the year of Trump’s personal style; 2026 is becoming the year of institutional shift. The current year appears to be a turning point. The world is moving from institutional responsibility to personalized management of institutions, creating a strategic window of opportunity for authoritarian regimes. In this sense, the question “what comes next?” is addressed not to the international security system as a whole, but to the capacity of U.S. democratic institutions to preserve their own architecture.

In contemporary conditions, analysis of transformations in international politics cannot be separated from the reality of their consequences. Institutional changes, the redefinition of alliances, and the emergence of alternative centers of political initiative are occurring not in an abstract arena of international debate, but alongside ongoing glocal genocidal aggression—where security, law, and responsibility carry an existential human dimension.

Therefore, questions of institutional erosion or changing principles of legitimacy are not theoretical disputes. They describe processes already affecting the capacity of the international security system to protect lives, uphold the rule of law, and deter aggression. In this context, precision in defining actions and consequences is not a political stance but a necessary condition for adequately understanding reality—where the speed and legitimacy of political decisions directly determine the scale of human loss and the boundaries of future stability.

Conclusions

Events in early 2026 demonstrate a shift that can no longer be viewed merely as a feature of an individual leader’s style. What was once perceived as personal political behavior is moving into the realm of institutional reality. This is not a long-term trend but a sequence of concrete decisions and statements unfolding in real time and already reshaping the functioning of state and international mechanisms.

The initiation of new political structures outside traditional international procedures, the assignment to them of functions historically belonging to intergovernmental institutions, and attempts at symbolic oversight of global organizations create a new situation: political initiative begins to claim the status of a source of legitimacy alongside the existing system of international law.

The reaction of representatives of the United Nations—who emphasized that oversight of the organization is exercised by member states through the General Assembly and the Security Council—effectively confirmed the emergence of institutional tension between established norms and new political practices. For the first time, the conflict concerns not a specific policy decision, but the principle itself: who has the authority to define the framework of global governance.

Simultaneously, allied relations are being redefined. Collective security mechanisms historically based on mutual obligations are increasingly interpreted through a negotiating logic of resources and capabilities. In this context, NATO is perceived not only as a normative security community, but as a space of bargaining where responsibility becomes an object of political trade.

Importantly, these shifts are occurring alongside the continuation of earlier institutional decisions—particularly sanctions regimes and international commitments. This produces a bifurcation effect: state institutions continue operating within the logic of the previous order, while political initiative constructs a new model of action in real time.

The current moment is not an abstract crisis of the international system; it is a situation in which institutional erosion occurs not through the destruction of structures, but through their gradual circumvention by alternative mechanisms. Formally, the order remains intact; practically, the source of political action is changing.

As a result, international reality is increasingly defined not by norms, but by the speed of political initiative. This shift in tempo—from procedural stability to daily political resonance—becomes the defining feature of the new stage.

Authors: Hryhorii Liubovets, Valerii Korol, NGO “Center for Communication and Content Security”

Photo: EPA and open sources

Tags: #prompolitinform, #institutionalresponsibility, #voluntarism, #DonaldTrump, #internationalsecurity, #personalizedgovernance, #NATO, #UnitedNations, #UnitedStates