By Mathew Burrows and Robert A. Manning

    Donald Trump’s successor, whomever it may be, will find it difficult to restore US global leadership in 2029.

    Editor’s Note: The Red Cell series is published in collaboration with the Stimson Center. Drawing upon the legacy of the CIA’s Red Cell—established following the September 11 attacks to avoid similar analytic failures in the future—the project works to challenge assumptions, misperceptions, and groupthink with a view to encouraging alternative approaches to America’s foreign and national security policy challenges. For more information about the Stimson Center’s Red Cell Project, see here.

    Red Cell

    Is President Donald Trump’s break with the United States’ traditional internationalist stance irrevocable, or can it be reversed? The stakes are high for the United States’ standing, as well as for partnerships with US allies, which have counted on America for their security and prosperity. There have been other “transformational” presidents, such as Ronald Reagan, but none questioned the US-led global order, which has buttressed and extended American power for the past 80 years.

    In the first hundred days of his second term, Trump initiated the dismantling of institutions like the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which provided 40 percent of global humanitarian aid and disaster relief. The skeletal remains of USAID have been folded into the State Department, which faces massive cuts itself. A draft memo on the proposed reorganization of the State Department “eliminates Africa operations and shut[s] down bureaus working on democracy, human rights and refugee issues” and will reduce personnel, including diplomatic staff, by 15 percent. If Congress approves, some US embassies and missions in Africa and the developing world will close.

    All climate change and environmental programs across the US government are being slashed, “cut[ting] billions of dollars for everything from drinking water, clean energy and weather satellites to national parks, emergency management and environmental justice.” Funding for green tech and clean energy, which former President Joe Biden initiated, is set to be reduced in Trump’s proposed budget, including funding for electric vehicles (EVs), which, along with auto tariffs, will position China to dominate the world market in EVs, batteries, and solar energy.

    Future US economic growth, as well as the innovation that has driven it, will be damaged by Trump’s cuts to federal R&D, particularly the crown jewels of science research and innovation—the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. All three of these institutions have fired scientists and halted research projects, which are not easy to restart. A recent American University study found that deep cuts to scientific research could cause “long-run economic damage equivalent to a major recession,” let alone put an end to US leadership in health care.

    Universities are a critical hub for research on a wide range of topics, from cancer to vaccines, and many elite ones, such as Harvard, are facing the possible loss of federal funding for scientific research. The only pillar of US global power that will remain is the United States’ unrivaled military superiority, which is being bolstered further in Trump’s budget proposal.

    Trump is not just abolishing many domestic programs that have supported the United States’ international leadership. Indeed, he appears determined to retreat from much of the multilateralist framework that Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and their successors created. He has blown up the World Trade Organization (WTO) trading system, withdrawn from the World Health Organization, and cut humanitarian and development funding for United Nations (UN) agencies, which will endanger the world’s poor.

    The president has stated that other countries, including and especially US allies, have taken advantage of US security guarantees and open markets. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio has stated, “The postwar global order is not just obsolete; it is now a weapon being used against us.” It is unclear what NATO’s role will be in four years—or whether a new US-Russia partnership will transform the strategic landscape. By 2029, Europe may have begun building an independent defense in the wake of watered-down US commitments to defend Europe against Russia.

    Accusations by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent against the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank for their “woke” lending practices hint that once the 180-day review of international institutions is finished, the United States might reduce its commitments or even exit from both institutions. Departure from the IMF would cause a major crisis for the dollar, whose standing has already been hit by Trump’s tariffs.

    By instituting tariffs against allies and other countries at levels rivaling those of the 1930s, Trump has shown that the United States is no longer interested in acting as a traditional economic hegemon. According to economic historian Charles Kindleberger, economic hegemons provide “three crucial functions…[they] maintain a relatively open market where countries in distress could sell their goods…provide long-term loans to countries in trouble…[and] act as a global central bank.”

    Trump wants to unilaterally exact concessions from other countries based on an exaggerated sense of the power and attractiveness of the US market. Economists warn that because of tariffs, countries will turn elsewhere to sell their goods, and protectionism will degrade the United States’ economic competitiveness.

    The nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimates that “a 10 percent universal tariff could raise $2.2 trillion over the 2025 through 2034 budget window” but “reduce GDP by 0.4 percent.” As a result of retaliation for tariffs, the GDP is set to fall further to $1.4 trillion by 2035. A recent Peterson Institute study suggests that US agriculture, mining, and manufacturing could be the hardest hit due to their reliance on foreign demand for their exports.