Less than a month after he was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States of America, there have been renewed concerns about whether Donald Trump’s presidency would signal the end of what is often called ‘the American Century.’ The phrase was coined by Time founder and publisher, Henry Luce, the son of a missionary, in a February 17, 1941, editorial in Life Magazine, a sister publication he also founded. Captioned “The American Century,” Luce made a strong plea for America to forsake isolationism and enter World War II to defend democratic values. He argued that under American hegemony, democracy and other American ideals would “do their mysterious work of lifting the life of mankind from the level of the beasts to what the psalmist called a little lower than the angels.” Essentially, Luce urged the USA to assume the role of the world’s Good Samaritan by championing the spread of democratic values across the world.

Luce talked about the ‘American Century’ rather than ‘American Empire’ (as we had with the British empire from 1815-1914) because he felt the missionary power conferred on the country by history was global rather than territorially defined. America seemingly heeded his advice and its involvement proved decisive in ending the Second World War. America also played a crucial role in the reconstruction of Europe after the war through the Marshall Plan. The country’s influence further grew during the Cold War (1947-1991) when it led the Western alliance against the Soviet-led Eastern bloc. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States remained the world’s only superpower, and became the hegemon, or what some termed a hyper-power.

Given the global pattern of the rise and decline of great empires and societies, predictions of an imminent decline or collapse of the American Century have a long history. In fact, the twentieth century has witnessed the decline or collapse of at least seven great empires – Mandarin China, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Turkey, Japan, the British empire, and twice over in the case of Tsarist and Soviet Russia. After the terrorist attacks in the US on September 11, 2001 that led to the death of almost 3000 people, mostly Americans, people thought the event was going to accelerate the decline of the only remaining military superpower. America recovered well from it. But talks about its decline, especially with the rise of other poles of economic power – China, the European Union (which was not really seen as a threat until Trump) and recently, the BRICS countries, the old concerns about the possible decline or even a dramatic collapse of the American Century, became revived.

Even before he was sworn in as America’s 45th President on January 20 2025, Trump’s rhetoric had been a source of global concern. The grandiloquence and flurry of Executive Orders, including the use  (or threat of the use) of tariffs even against countries regarded as America’s closest allies such as Canada and the European Union, have raised concerns of how reciprocal response by the affected countries what would affect the world order and America’s global influence.

There are four possible responses against Trumpism that we should watch out for:

One, in international relations, there is what is called the ‘Balance of power theory’. This basically argues that states threatened by a hegemonic power could secure their survival by bandying together to prevent that hegemon from dis-equilibrating the system or to restore equilibrium if the hegemon temporarily succeeds in upsetting the system’s balance.  This presupposes that states threatened by Trump, (and this is virtually all states of the world – old foes and traditional allies alike), may gang up to prevent him from having his way. For instance, Donald Trump has expressed interest in acquiring Greenland – an Island owned by Denmark, a member of the European Union. In response, the EU leaders said they would defend Greenland. In such a scenario one can surmise that if push comes to shove, they will not reject help from America’s traditional enemies, including those President George W Bush referred to as “axis of evil” in 2002. President Bush at that time was referring to Iran, Ba’athist Iraq, and North Korea.

Regarding Trump’s threats to impose tariffs on both its traditional allies and traditional foes, not only is there the possibility of retaliatory response, that threat alone, even if not implemented, could lead to many countries,  taking measures to ensure they forever drastically reduce their reliance on the US – militarily, economically and even culturally. This scenario could paradoxically present opportunities for Africa as countries loosening their ties with the US will look to new frontiers and new markets.

Two, the response of America’s institutions to some of the actions of Trump would also be of interest. America’s institutions have over the years proven themselves to be resilient but some have argued that the country has not had any President in the mould of Donald Trump who seems determined to have his ways in a monarchical fashion. For instance, one of the first actions of President Trump after his second coming was to fire more than a dozen justice department lawyers who worked on two criminal cases against him. The lawyers were fired after Acting Attorney General James McHenry concluded they could not “be trusted to faithfully implement the president’s agenda because of their significant role in prosecuting the president”. Some have sneered that this sort of vindictiveness is usually associated with the so-called Third World countries. Similarly, the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration — both legal and illegal — has resulted in at least 10 lawsuits, seven of which challenged his Executive Order revoking universal birthright citizenship. There are also litigations on Trump’s Budget Freezes and Firings. The crucial question here is whether American institutions will triumph or whether Trump’s willpower will weaken those institutions to the extent that democracy and the principle of freedom on which America fought and won the Cold War would lose their attractions as organizing elements of American power. If American institutions prevail, it will diminish President Trump’s presidency and his global respectability; if Trump triumphs, it will diminish America’s institutions.

Three, there have been suggestions that many of Trump’s harsh rhetoric, including on the use of tariffs, could be mere brinkmanship. Brinksmanship as a bargaining strategy is usually associated with John Foster Dulles, the US Secretary of State from 1953 to 1956 during the Eisenhower administration. Dulles defined this policy thus:  “The ability to get to the verge without getting into the war is the necessary art.” During the Cold War, it was used as a policy by the United States to coerce the Soviet Union into backing down militarily. Trump has used the threat of tariffs against Canada and Mexico as bargaining chips to get what he probably considers as better deals when these countries countered with their own tariff threats. There are however two main dangers with using brinksmanship as a bargaining strategy – the target state may call the bluff, and if the threatening state is unable to implement its threat, future threats will fail to serve as deterrence to unwanted behaviour. The second danger is that if threats become merely seen as brinksmanship, states will develop counter-strategies that will mute the potency of future threats as bargaining chips. For brinksmanship to work, the threat must be credible. If Trumpism leads to the forging of a new global coalition to stop him from disequilibrating the system, then brinksmanship will lose its shine as a bargaining strategy.

Four, Trumpism could lead to an acceleration in the prestige of institutions such as BRICS whose avowed objectives include the creation of a multipolar world that will either drastically reduce or overthrow the current American-led Western system of global governance and security.  BRIC, as an acronym, was coined in 2001 by then Goldman Sachs chief economist Jim O’Neill to underline the growth potentials of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. It became BRICS when South Africa joined the group in 2010. In 2023, six countries – Ethiopia, Egypt, Iran, Argentina, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia  – were invited to join the group transforming it into  BRICS+. Together, the BRICS countries account for more than 40% of the world’s population and a quarter of the global economy. The 16th Summit of the group held in the Tatarstan city of Kazan, Russia, from  22–24 October, 2024, and themed “Strengthening Multilateralism for Fair Global Development and Security,”  endorsed the reform of the United Nations Security Council. It also agreed to explore the feasibility of creating an autonomous cross-border settlement and depository system (away from the current Western-driven SWIFT system) and the possible utilisation of national currencies, payment tools, and platforms. There were equally proposals for the invigoration of the group’s New Development Bank (NDB), which was established in 2014, with the aim of providing member countries with greater financial autonomy and resilience against external shocks. At the Kazan Summit, the group announced that Nigeria, along with twelve others, had become partner countries to the BRICS+.  The other twelve are: Algeria, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.

In addition to BRICS, any attempt to acquire or seize Greenland or embark on trade wars with the European Union could potentially turn it into an adversary with shared interest in whittling down America’s power and global influence.  If this happens, the US would be up against a very formidable group of 27 member states with an estimated population of 449 million, an estimated nominal GDP of $19.40 trillion in 2024 or $28.04 trillion (PPP) representing about one-sixth of the global economy.

The EU is often described as a sui generis political entity because it combines the characteristics of both a federation and a confederation. A possible collaboration between BRICS and the European Union would be a frightening scenario for America’s global leadership and influence and could mark the beginning of the end of the American Century.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jideofor Adibe is a Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Nasarawa State University and founder of Adonis & Abbey Publishers (www.adonis-abbey.com). He can be reached at: 0705 807 8841 (WhatsApp and Text messages only).