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 just before the annual Munich Security Conference, the report delivers a stark assessment of today’s global landscape. It points to US President Donald Trump as the primary force challenging the pillars of the current international order, depicting his approach to governance as a sharp departure from decades of US-supported multilateral cooperation. Instead of upholding institutions meant to navigate conflict and foster collaboration, the report argues that current US policy is actively eroding 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 set by Washington and its ripple effects
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 only a few weeks into the administration, pressed Europe on matters like migration and free expression, asserting that the continent’s most serious challenges stemmed from within rather than from outside rivals, remarks that caught many attendees off guard and were broadly seen as a shift away from the collaborative language commonly linked to 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 points to what it describes as a deferential stance toward Russia in the context of its invasion of Ukraine. This posture, it argues, has further strained alliances and raised doubts about the reliability of US commitments to collective defense and international law.
Taken together, these actions contribute to what the report characterizes as a broader pattern: the use of power to reshape the international environment without regard for established norms or the concerns of long-standing partners.
A world increasingly steered by 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.
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 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 such as housing affordability, rising inequality, and stagnating wages feature prominently in these concerns. In many cases, respondents believe that current policies will leave future generations worse off, a sentiment that underscores a broader loss of confidence in long-term progress.
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 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 explored perceptions of responsibility for this bleak outlook. When asked whether the policies of the US president are beneficial for the world, significant portions of respondents across multiple countries expressed disagreement.
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.
Although the report avoids assigning every global challenge to one leader, it highlights how the vast reach of the US amplifies the impact of its policy decisions. When the world’s dominant nation conveys apathy or opposition toward established norms, those signals echo across the entire 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.
While the conference traditionally serves as a platform for reaffirming shared commitments, this year’s discussions are likely to be shaped by uncertainty and tension. The themes raised in the report, including the durability of alliances and the future of multilateral institutions, are expected to dominate 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 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 argue that while the post-1945 order has always evolved, its survival has depended on a shared understanding that rules and institutions serve collective interests. Undermining those structures, even in the name of national advantage, risks creating a more volatile 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 debates unfold in Munich and beyond, the challenge for global leaders will be to balance domestic pressures with international responsibilities. The report’s warning is clear: a world governed solely by power and transactions may offer short-term gains for some, but it carries long-term risks for all.
By bringing these dynamics to the forefront, the Munich Security Report 2026 delivers not only an assessment of today’s leadership, but also a wider consideration of how delicate the international order has become. Whether that order evolves, breaks apart, or is replaced by something entirely different will hinge on choices being taken now, at a time shaped by volatility, ambiguity, and conflicting ideas about the future.
