In a landmark interview with The New York Times on 8 January, President Donald Trump articulated a paradigm shift in American foreign policy.

Interviewed by NYT White House correspondents David E. Sanger, Tyler Pager, Katie Rogers and Zolan Kanno-Youngs, President Trump made the stunning declaration that his power is restrained only by his “own morality” and “own mind,” effectively signaling the abandonment of international law as a binding constraint on US actions.

This “might-is-right” stance, reinforced by the recent military operation in Venezuela and recent US withdrawals from dozens of international treaties, marks America’s (under Trump) return to a neo-imperialist ethos not seen in a century.

The world is witnessing the deliberate dismantling of the multilateral system, nay, an end to a rules-based order.

On 7 January 2026, Trump signed a memorandum withdrawing the US from 66 international organizations and treaties, including the bedrock UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This represents a rejection of the “rules-based order” in favor of “ownership” and raw national strength.

Traditional allies in the global community, particularly in Europe, are already grappling with a US that views the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as a “choice” against territorial acquisitions like Greenland.

The response from middle powers and international bodies like the United Nations has been a mix of condemnation and alarm, with UN Secretary General António Guterres warning that such unilateralism violates the UN Charter and sets a dangerous global precedent.

In Asia, the implications of a morality-based US foreign policy are particularly acute. Trump’s assertion that he is the sole arbiter of his own authority undermines the reliability of US defense treaties.

In the 8 January New York Times interview, he suggested that the future of Taiwan’s security might depend more on his personal relationship with Xi Jinping than on longstanding legal commitments, saying that he believes China won’t move on Taiwan “with me as president” but offering no long-term institutional guarantees.

What would happen if Trump decides similarly in case China (or any other foreign force) attacks the Philippines? Can the Philippines rely with absolute certainty on US military support, as embodied in the Mutual Defense Treaty between the US and the Philippines that was signed in August 1951

Analysts warn that if the US operates above international law, it provides a “trump card” for other regional powers to follow suit. China or Russia may feel emboldened to pursue coercive actions within their own spheres of influence, citing the US precedent in Venezuela as justification.

The focus on “ownership” (Trump’s statement on his intention regarding Greenland) over “leases or treaties” threatens the stability of trade.

While 2026 began with a temporary shelving of triple-digit tariffs on Chinese goods, the unpredictability of a president who views international agreements as disposable makes long-term economic planning in the Philippines and the rest of ASEAN nearly impossible.

Nations across Asia may begin to rethink their alignment with Washington. If the US is no longer an “honest broker” or a predictable partner, regional players may be forced to gravitate toward Beijing’s orbit as the more stable, albeit assertive, regional superpower alternative.

The “morality” of a single leader is a fragile foundation for global stability. For Asia, this shift necessitates a move toward “strategic autonomy” — strengthening intra-regional alliances and diversifying security partnerships.

When the world’s preeminent power replaces international law with personal whim, the age of certainty ends and the age of raw power begins. The world must now prepare for an America that acts not as a leader of a system, but as a unilateral actor in a zero-sum game.