From the Free World to Transactional Realism
Trumpism and the Crisis of the Free World Narrative
The Narrative of the Free World
Since the end of the Second World War, the unifying narrative of the Western world has centered on the defense of individual liberties and open societies against authoritarian statess. Within this framework, the United States has held a leading role in defending freedom and openness, which historically served to legitimize American military interventions.
During the Cold War, this narrative of freedom found its most assertive expression through neoconservativism. Neoconservativism radicalized the narrative by emphasizing moral clarity, the active export of democracy, and the duty of the United States to maintain a “benevolent global hegemony.” Although neoconservativism pushed a highly ideological version, the freedom narrative functioned as a broad strategic tool capable of uniting both the American right and left, as well as Western European allies, under the shared threat of the Soviet Union. It provided the United States with legitimacy as the leader of “the Free World.”
Even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the freedom narrative and its neoconservative interpretation continued to serve as the foundation for American military interventions, particularly in connection with the War on Terror and the Iraq War. However, the protracted war in Iraq—whose premises proved false and whose consequences contributed to increased instability in the Middle East—accelerated the narrative’s loss of credibility. This development paved the way for a more nationalist and transactional American foreign policy of the kind that Trump would later come to represent.
Trump and Transactional Geopolitics
In both his rhetoric and diplomatic style, Trump has distanced himself significantly from the traditional freedom narrative. Instead, he advances narratives aimed primarily at his domestic electoral base. Trump is anything but modest, yet unlike previous American presidents, he makes no claim to be the leader of the West or the Free World. Trump’s meeting with Xi Jinping on May 13–15 illustrates an “America First” pragmatism that prioritizes transactional deals over value-based leadership.
Under Trump, Taiwan risks being perceived as a bargaining chip rather than a long-term security commitment. This undermines deterrence against China and breeds doubt not only among America’s Indo-Pacific allies but also in Europe. In recent years, Europe has accepted the necessity of assuming greater responsibility for its own security while the U.S. concentrates its resources on Asia. However, if American commitments in China’s immediate neighborhood are no longer seen as a given, the resulting uncertainty threatens to become more fundamental.
Although the U.S. commitment to Taiwan can be justified by the immense geopolitical importance of the Taiwan Strait, American rhetoric regarding Taiwan has traditionally emphasized democracy, political values, and freedom. Trump downplays the normative and principled dimension that has long been central to how the United States legitimizes its support for Taiwan.
Concurrently, the Trump administration has been active against authoritarian regimes aligned with China: launching major military operations against Iran, enforcing harsh sanctions and threats of intervention against Cuba, and maintaining continuous pressure on both Nicaragua and Venezuela. From a geopolitical perspective these actions can strengthen the geopolitical position of the United States vis-à-vis China. Within the Pentagon and among traditional security policymakers, this is likely viewed as part of a broader strategy against authoritarian expansion.
Nevertheless, Trump does not utilize the classic freedom narrative. His rhetoric remains nationalist and transactional rather than an ideological defense of the liberal order, democracy, and individual liberties. Trump’s approach demonstrates a consistent pattern: a flattering tone toward Xi Jinping and other authoritarian leaders when it suits his negotiating style, combined with dismissive criticism of traditional Western allies, accusing them of free-riding. Furthermore, Trump seems to see little need to win the support of his allies, whether through traditional alliance diplomacy or through a narrative that would help European leaders justify supporting the U.S. in conflicts such as the one with Iran.
Western Fragmentation and Authoritarian Narratives
It is primarily traditional Republicans, neoconservatives, and establishment internationalists who feel that Trump is betraying both the West and the long-term interests of the United States. They view his transactional style as an abandonment of Reagan’s legacy and America’s role as the leader of the Free World. Criticism also emanates from factions within the Pentagon that prefer a cohesive, value-based strategy against China.
Anxiety is mounting among Western allies in Europe and the Indo-Pacific. Many view Trump as a president who prioritizes relations with authoritarian leaders over solidarity with democracies. This exacerbates the divergence between Trump’s nationalist, sovereignty-oriented view of international politics and the more liberal, internationalist orientation of many European governments.
A classic Western freedom narrative possesses the capacity to rally the Pentagon, traditional Republicans, neoconservatives, and democratic allies in Europe and Asia alike. Yet, Trump consciously chooses not to deploy it. Trump is not necessarily abandoning the fight against certain authoritarian threats, but he is abandoning the narrative that historically sustained Western cohesion during the post-war era. His policies toward Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela could have been framed as a defense of liberty against an authoritarian bloc, which would have bolstered legitimacy among both domestic traditionalists and international allies. Within Trumpism, however, this type of universalist legitimation is no longer afforded the same central importance.
Consequently, the conflict is not merely geopolitical; it also concerns the type of legitimizing stories that can still sustain Western cohesion. Historically, the Western freedom narrative was powerful precisely because it synthesized disparate ideological traditions: religious freedom of conscience, liberal individualism, and anti-totalitarian democracy. During the Cold War, this forged an unusual coalition among conservatives, liberals, and social democrats. The narrative was never applied entirely consistently and frequently coexisted with realpolitik compromises. Despite this, it functioned as a central legitimizing narrative for Western solidarity and American leadership.
After the Universalist Era
Trumpism marks a shift away from a tradition of legitimation based on universal claims toward a more explicitly interest- and power-based view of international politics. At the same time, this does not mean the need for shared narratives disappears. On the contrary, both China and Russia are actively promoting their own strategic narratives of civilizational order, sovereignty, and political stability.
The question is not whether the West can return to older forms of universalism, but whether liberal democracies can still formulate a sufficiently robust shared story to maintain strategic cohesion and resist the influence of authoritarian regimes. Such a narrative does not need to rely on the notion of an inherent, predetermined direction of history. It may suffice to possess a collective will to defend societies where individual liberties, pluralism, and open institutions still exist.
Without some form of cohesive narrative, Western democracies risk appearing strategically fragmented, rendering them more vulnerable in the competition with authoritarian powers that more successfully integrate geopolitics, identity, and narrative legitimation.