Trump’s world view revives old imperial ambitions, analysts warn

Trump’s embrace of spheres of influence could reshape global power dynamics and weaken the post-Cold War international order.

U.S. President Donald Trump departs after attending a Reviewing the Troops Ceremony as part of his inaugural activities in Emancipation Hall at the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Photo by Ron Sachs/Getty Images

By Anna Fadiah and Hayu Andini

Donald Trump’s world view revives old imperial ambitions, analysts caution, potentially dragging the international system into a new era where powerful states once again dominate the weak. With statements that appear to undermine sovereignty—from calling Canada the “51st US state” to demanding a military presence in the Panama Canal—Trump is departing from decades of American commitment to a rules-based international order.

This return to a spheres of influence mindset, common during the Cold War and centuries of imperial history, raises concerns among international relations scholars, diplomats, and strategists. They warn that Trump’s approach mirrors the behavior of other global powers—Russia and China—that have long been accused of seeking regional dominance through coercion and disregard for territorial integrity.

An imperial shift in U.S. foreign policy

In recent public appearances, Trump has voiced admiration for acquiring foreign territories and disregarded long-established boundaries. His past musings about “buying Greenland” and his administration’s vow to “take back” the Panama Canal align with a broader narrative of reclaiming American influence—not through partnerships or diplomacy, but through assertion of control.

On Wednesday, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested re-establishing a military base in Panama, an idea that resurrects memories of the 1989 U.S. invasion to remove dictator Manuel Noriega. It also echoes the long-standing American view of Latin America as “America’s backyard.”

“The Trump 2.0 administration is largely accepting the familiar great power claim to ‘spheres of influence,’” said Gregory O. Hall, a professor at the University of Kentucky.

This strategic realignment redefines how the U.S. interacts with both allies and adversaries. It signals a possible end to America's self-appointed role as the global defender of sovereign equality and the international legal system established after World War II.

Echoes of Yalta: a world divided once more?

Some experts believe Trump’s approach could push the world back to the dynamics of 1945, when the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to divide post-war Europe into zones of control at the Yalta Conference.

Derek Grossman of the RAND Corporation noted that stronger ties between the U.S., Russia, and China could lead to a similar “carve-up” of global influence, this time without consulting smaller nations.

Monica Toft, an international relations scholar at Tufts University, wrote in Foreign Affairs that great powers today may negotiate their interests directly with each other, sidelining the rest of the world.

“In a scenario in which the United States, China, and Russia all agree that they have a vital interest in avoiding a nuclear war, acknowledging each other's spheres of influence can serve as a mechanism to deter escalation,” Toft explained.

Yet such recognition could come at a cost—potentially freezing Ukraine into Russia’s orbit or Taiwan into China’s. This notion is deeply troubling to smaller nations that have depended on U.S. protection under international law.

The breakdown of post-Cold War order

For over three decades since the Cold War ended, Washington has portrayed itself as a guardian of a world order based on mutual respect for borders, sovereignty, and rule of law. This framework has been crucial to peace and diplomacy across regions from Europe to Asia and Latin America.

But that international order now appears increasingly fragile. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s military build-up around Taiwan already challenge those norms. Trump’s foreign policy accelerates the erosion of these foundational principles.

Jeffrey Mankoff, a researcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and author of Empires of Eurasia, argues that both Russia and China are operating from an imperial legacy.

“These countries are themselves products of empires and continue to function in many ways like empires,” Mankoff said. “They seek to throw their weight around for reasons of prestige, power or protection.”

The problem, Mankoff added, is not just with Moscow and Beijing. With Trump leaning into a similar worldview, the United States is effectively legitimizing imperial-style dominance and retreating from its previous moral authority.

A dangerous precedent for smaller nations

Former Indian diplomat Jawed Ashraf emphasized how Trump’s approach could embolden other powers to assert similar claims.

“By speaking openly about Greenland, Canada, Panama Canal,” he said, “the new administration may have accelerated the slide toward great power domination.”

For Europe and other allies, the message is clear: Washington’s protective umbrella is no longer guaranteed. Instead, each country might need to defend its interests independently in an increasingly fragmented and multipolar world.

“In Trump’s world, Europeans need their own sphere of influence,” said Rym Momtaz of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace. “For former imperial powers, Europeans seem strangely on the backfoot as nineteenth-century spheres of influence come back as the organizing principle of global affairs.”

Ukraine’s ongoing struggle against Russian invasion could become a litmus test for the future of the international system. If the West abandons Kyiv to Moscow’s sphere, it could set a precedent for similar takeovers elsewhere.

“The success or failure of Ukraine to defend its sovereignty is going to have a lot of impact in terms of what the global system ends up looking like a generation from now,” Mankoff warned. “So it's important for countries that have the ability and want to uphold an anti-imperial version of international order to assist Ukraine.”

Is a new Yalta inevitable?

As Russia, China, and a Trump-led United States appear more inclined to divide the world into spheres of influence, smaller countries risk becoming pawns on a new geopolitical chessboard.

The shift away from cooperative internationalism could result in increased conflict and instability. When powerful nations prioritize their own dominance over shared global rules, the likelihood of proxy wars, economic coercion, and diplomatic breakdowns rises significantly.

But it’s not too late to reinforce the principles of sovereignty and cooperation. Much depends on how Europe, Asia, and other regions respond to the mounting pressure to pick sides or assert their own zones of control.

Analysts agree that the world stands at a crossroads: one path leads to a fractured, imperial-style global order dominated by a few, while the other offers a chance to rebuild trust in multilateral diplomacy and shared responsibility.

The coming years will reveal whether Trump’s world view remains a political anomaly or becomes the defining doctrine of U.S. foreign policy in the 21st century. For now, the reawakening of imperial ambitions signals turbulence ahead in the delicate balance of global power.