The international system that has underpinned decades of relative stability is facing mounting stress. A new global security assessment warns that aggressive political disruption, driven largely by US leadership, is accelerating the erosion of long-standing rules, alliances, and shared 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 depiction of Trump as one of the foremost “demolition men” of the global order. The report presents this disruption not as an unintended or reflexive response, but as a hallmark of a political strategy that treats established rules as barriers instead of protections. Within this framework, international agreements are approached as transactional instruments, valued only when they offer immediate benefit.
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 places the present moment against the wider backdrop of the second Trump administration, underscoring a sequence of moves and remarks that have shaken long-standing partners. One of the first indicators emerged at the previous Munich Security Conference, where US Vice President JD Vance gave a speech strongly rebuking 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 speech proved to be an early indicator of a turbulent year to follow. Subsequent policy moves included the imposition of punitive tariffs on close European allies, signaling a willingness to weaponize economic ties. Even more striking were statements suggesting the possibility of US military action to seize Greenland, a territory belonging to NATO ally Denmark, a notion that sent shockwaves 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 suggests that this approach favors actors with the greatest economic and military leverage, while marginalizing smaller states and populations that rely on predictable rules for protection and opportunity. Critics cited in the report fear that this shift will produce a world that primarily serves the interests of the wealthy and powerful, rather than addressing the broader needs of societies facing economic and social strain.
Rather than posing an abstract hypothesis, this concern is tied directly to clear shifts in public sentiment and political conduct across various regions, where declining trust in institutions and enduring inequalities have left many people doubtful that governments are capable of providing meaningful answers.
The report argues that disruptive leadership styles may initially resonate with voters who feel excluded or ignored. Over time, however, the erosion of cooperative frameworks risks deepening the very problems that fuel discontent, including economic insecurity, inequality, and declining social mobility.
Public sentiment reveals mounting pessimism
Based on extensive surveys carried out in numerous countries, the Munich Security Report grounds its analysis in public opinion data, revealing a widespread unease about what lies ahead, as many participants question whether their governments can raise living standards or tackle deep-rooted issues.
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 indicate that pessimism runs especially high across several European nations, with most respondents in France believing that government actions will disadvantage rather than support future generations, a sentiment echoed by over half of those surveyed in the United Kingdom and Germany, while in the United States the proportion was lower though nearly half of participants still expressed this concern.
The report reads these findings as pointing to a rising feeling of personal and shared powerlessness, noting that many now link political shifts not with progress but with uncertainty and deterioration.
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.
In the United States itself, as well as in Canada, major European economies, Japan, Brazil, and South Africa, at least half of those surveyed said they either slightly or strongly disagreed with the notion that current US leadership is having a positive global impact. This widespread skepticism suggests that concerns about US policy extend beyond traditional critics and are shared across diverse political and cultural contexts.
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 argues, creates incentives for other actors to adopt similarly transactional or unilateral approaches, accelerating the breakdown of cooperative structures.
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 attend the conference. Instead, the United States will be represented by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and a large congressional delegation. According to conference organizers, more than 50 members of Congress are expected to participate, signaling continued engagement even in the absence of the president himself.
The report indicates that while representation at this level keeps communication channels open, it also underscores how the president’s absence carries symbolic weight at a time when strong leadership and reassurance are urgently needed.
An international order standing at a pivotal juncture
The Munich Security Report does not present its findings as inevitable or irreversible. Instead, it frames the current moment as a crossroads, where choices made by key actors will shape the trajectory of global security for years to come.
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.
