The international framework that has supported decades of relative stability is under growing strain, with a new global security assessment cautioning that forceful political upheaval, largely propelled by US leadership, is hastening the decline of established rules, alliances, and collective norms.
According to the Munich Security Report 2026, the world has entered a phase defined by what it describes as “wrecking-ball politics,” a style of leadership that prioritizes forceful disruption over continuity and consensus. The report argues that this approach is placing the postwar international order under its most severe strain since its creation, with consequences that extend well beyond traditional geopolitical rivalries.
Released ahead of the annual Munich Security Conference, the report presents a stark diagnosis of the current global climate. It identifies US President Donald Trump as the most influential figure challenging the foundations of the existing international system, portraying his leadership style as a decisive break from decades of US-backed multilateralism. Rather than reinforcing institutions designed to manage conflict and cooperation, the report suggests that current US policy is actively weakening them.
A rules-based system facing unprecedented disruption
The international order established after 1945 was built to prevent a return to large-scale conflict, promote economic cooperation, and create mechanisms for collective security. Over time, it expanded through institutions such as the United Nations, NATO, the World Trade Organization, and a web of treaties and alliances that helped stabilize relations between major powers.
The Munich Security Report argues that this framework is now under direct threat. It states that more than eight decades after construction began, the system is no longer merely under pressure but is actively being dismantled. The language used is unusually blunt for a document traditionally rooted in diplomatic analysis, reflecting the authors’ assessment that incremental erosion has given way to deliberate disruption.
Central to this argument is the characterization of Trump as one of the leading “demolition men” of the global order. The report does not frame this disruption as accidental or reactive, but as a defining feature of a political approach that views existing rules as obstacles rather than safeguards. In this context, international agreements are treated as transactional tools, valued only insofar as they deliver immediate advantage.
This transition, the report cautions, could swap principled collaboration for improvised arrangements that prioritize immediate benefits at the expense of lasting stability, creating conditions that erode predictability, strain trust among partners, and complicate unified efforts to address global challenges.
The tone established in Washington and its wider reverberations
The report situates the current moment within the broader context of the second Trump administration, highlighting a series of actions and statements that have unsettled traditional partners. One of the earliest signals came at the previous Munich Security Conference, when US Vice President JD Vance delivered a speech that sharply criticized European leaders.
Vance’s address, delivered just weeks into the administration, challenged Europe on issues such as migration and free expression, arguing that the continent’s greatest threats originated internally rather than from external adversaries. The remarks surprised many in the audience and were widely interpreted as a departure from the cooperative rhetoric typically associated with transatlantic relations.
According to the report, that address became an early sign of the tumultuous year ahead. Later policy decisions featured the enforcement of harsh tariffs on key European partners, reflecting a readiness to turn economic relationships into leverage. Even more notable were remarks hinting at potential US military action to take control of Greenland, a territory of NATO ally Denmark, an idea that sent ripples of alarm through diplomatic circles.
The report also highlights what it characterizes as a deferential approach toward Russia amid its invasion of Ukraine, a stance that, it contends, has placed additional pressure on alliances and sparked skepticism about the dependability of US commitments to collective defense and international law.
Collectively, these measures form what the report describes as a wider trend: leveraging power to refashion the global landscape with little consideration for established norms or the interests of long-time partners.
A world drifting toward transactional politics
One of the Munich Security Report’s primary cautions is that the present course could produce a global order largely shaped by transactional dealings, where cooperation is steered not by shared principles or mutual duties but by immediate calculations of gain.
The report indicates that this strategy tends to advantage actors wielding substantial economic and military power, leaving smaller states and communities that depend on stable rules for security and opportunity increasingly sidelined. Those quoted in the report warn that such a transition could shape a global landscape tailored mainly to the priorities of the affluent and influential, instead of responding to the wider needs of societies grappling with economic and social pressures.
This concern is not presented as abstract speculation. Instead, it is linked directly to observable trends in public opinion and political behavior across multiple regions. As trust in institutions declines and inequalities persist, populations are increasingly skeptical that governments can deliver meaningful solutions.
The report suggests that disruptive leadership styles can at first appeal to voters who feel overlooked or marginalized, yet warns that as collaborative systems weaken, the underlying sources of frustration—such as economic vulnerability, unequal opportunities, and reduced social mobility—may grow even more severe.
Public sentiment reveals mounting pessimism
To support its analysis, the Munich Security Report draws on public opinion surveys conducted across a wide range of countries. The findings point to a pervasive sense of anxiety about the future, with many respondents expressing doubts about their governments’ ability to improve living standards or address structural challenges.
Issues like the growing cost of housing, widening inequality, and stagnant wages stand at the center of these worries, and many respondents feel that existing policies may ultimately leave future generations in a more difficult position, a view that reflects a deeper erosion of faith in sustained long-term advancement.
The data reveal particularly high levels of pessimism in several European countries. In France, a clear majority of respondents indicated that they expect government decisions to harm rather than help future generations. Similar views were expressed by more than half of those surveyed in the United Kingdom and Germany. In the United States, while the figure was lower, nearly half of respondents shared this outlook.
The report interprets these results as evidence of a growing sense of individual and collective helplessness. Rather than viewing political change as a pathway to improvement, many people now associate it with instability and decline.
Assigning responsibility in a volatile environment
Notably, the surveys also examined how people assign responsibility for this grim outlook, and when respondents across several countries were asked whether the US president’s policies serve the world’s interests, many indicated they did not agree.
Across the United States, Canada, major European economies, Japan, Brazil, and South Africa, at least half of respondents stated they somewhat or strongly disagreed with the idea that current US leadership is having a positive influence globally. This broad skepticism indicates that concerns about US policy stretch beyond traditional critics and resonate across varied political and cultural landscapes.
The report stops short of attributing all global challenges to a single leader. However, it emphasizes that the scale of US influence magnifies the effects of its policy choices. When the world’s most powerful country signals indifference or hostility toward established norms, the consequences reverberate throughout the international system.
This dynamic, the report contends, encourages additional actors to embrace comparable transactional or unilateral approaches, hastening the erosion of cooperative frameworks.
The Munich Security Conference as a focal point
The report’s publication aligns with preparations for the Munich Security Conference, the annual event that gathers heads of state, ministers, military officials, and security specialists from across the globe. Set to take place over three days in Munich, the conference is anticipated to welcome more than 50 national leaders, emphasizing its importance as a central venue for high‑level strategic discussions.
Although the conference has long functioned as a venue for reiterating mutual commitments, this year’s dialogue is poised to unfold amid heightened uncertainty and strain, with issues highlighted in the report – particularly the resilience of alliances and the trajectory of multilateral institutions – likely to steer much of the agenda.
US President Trump will not be present at the conference. In his place, the United States will be represented by Secretary of State Marco Rubio along with a substantial delegation from Congress. Conference organizers report that more than 50 legislators are expected to take part, reflecting ongoing involvement despite the president’s absence.
The report notes that representation at this level maintains channels of communication, but it also highlights the symbolic significance of presidential absence at a moment when leadership and reassurance are in high demand.
An international order at a crossroads
The Munich Security Report refrains from treating its conclusions as fixed or unchangeable, presenting the present phase instead as a pivotal juncture where decisions by major stakeholders are poised to influence global security’s direction for many years.
The authors contend that although the post-1945 order has continually shifted, its endurance has relied on a common belief that rules and institutions uphold shared interests, and weakening those foundations, even when framed as national gains, risks ushering in a more unstable and unequal world.
At the same time, the report notes that the current system has not provided prosperity or security in an even way, and it argues that responding to valid concerns calls for reform instead of dismantlement. It proposes that reinforcing institutions so they align more closely with present-day conditions may work better than discarding them entirely.
As discussions continue in Munich and elsewhere, global leaders will face the task of navigating domestic demands while meeting their international duties, and the report delivers a stark message: a world driven only by raw power and transactional dealings might yield brief advantages for a few, yet it poses lasting dangers for everyone.
In highlighting these dynamics, the Munich Security Report 2026 offers not just a critique of current leadership, but a broader reflection on the fragility of the international order. Whether that order adapts, fractures, or gives way to something entirely new will depend on decisions being made now, in an era marked by disruption, uncertainty, and competing visions of the future.
