The article argues that Donald Trump's unique and prolonged lame-duck period, coupled with domestic political pressures, makes him dangerously prone to international instability. Having exhausted major diplomatic gambits, Trump is expected to channel his energy into high-stakes, unilateral actions, primarily targeting adversaries such as Iran and Cuba. These potential actions—ranging from fresh strikes in the Persian Gulf to attempts at regime change—carry a significant risk of destabilizing regional security and triggering a global economic crisis. Policymakers must anticipate this pivot to high-risk foreign policy to mitigate potential international flare-ups.
Global trade 2026
English Summary
Chatham House argues that global trade is entering a structurally unstable phase in which economic security, geopolitical rivalry, and nationalism increasingly override traditional free-trade norms. The conference framing points to major drivers: a reoriented US trade posture under the second Trump administration, mounting pressure on the WTO and rules-based system, securitized supply chains, and intensified competition over technology and critical materials. It also highlights uneven regional adaptation, with Asian economies seeking growth opportunities while European governments struggle to balance competitiveness, resilience, and domestic political pressures. The strategic implication is that governments and firms should prioritize risk management, supply-chain resilience, and coalition-based rule-setting, while preparing for deeper fragmentation if multilateral mechanisms continue to weaken.
中文摘要
查塔姆研究所（Chatham House）指出，全球貿易正進入一個結構性不穩定階段，經濟安全、地緣政治競爭與民族主義日益凌駕於傳統自由貿易規範之上。該會議的分析框架指出了主要驅動因素：第二屆川普政府下美國貿易立場的重新定向、世界貿易組織（WTO）與規則導向體系所承受的壓力升高、供應鏈安全化，以及圍繞科技與關鍵原材料的競爭加劇。報告亦強調區域調適的不均衡：亞洲經濟體積極尋求成長機會，而歐洲各國政府則在競爭力、韌性與國內政治壓力之間艱難權衡。其戰略意涵在於，政府與企業應優先強化風險管理、供應鏈韌性與以聯盟為基礎的規則制定能力，並在多邊機制持續弱化的情況下，為更深層的碎片化預作準備。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
China's economic strategy is characterized by a persistent 'economics of denial,' prioritizing massive state-directed investment in advanced technology over addressing weak domestic consumption. This approach is rooted in a flawed belief that controlling physical capital will automatically generate productivity and wage growth, ignoring the structural imbalance where domestic demand consistently falls short of supply. This overinvestment and underconsumption model is unsustainable. Consequently, Beijing's policies will continue to generate global deflationary pressures and escalating trade friction, necessitating a fundamental pivot toward consumption-led growth for long-term stability.
-
3.
The Blue Wave signals significant voter frustration with cost of living and inflation, giving Congress a mandate to prioritize affordability and cost-reduction measures. Economically, the rapid build-out of AI data centers is creating localized stress, driving up skilled labor wages and straining resources, while also facing constraints from power grids and potential local regulatory backlash. Policymakers must manage this 'sequencing issue'—addressing rising costs before full productivity gains from AI can materialize—and anticipate shifts in global data center infrastructure as the market matures.
-
4.
The U.S. is drastically reducing core funding to multilateral institutions, withdrawing from numerous bodies due to perceived misalignment with national interests. While multilateral channels offer critical advantages—such as pooling resources for global public goods and managing risk in fragile settings—the U.S.'s funding remains heavily 'earmarked,' which effectively 'bilateralizes' the system and undermines shared burden-sharing. This practice, coupled with deep cuts, diminishes the multilateral system's effectiveness and efficiency, particularly in humanitarian aid. Policy recommendations suggest the U.S. must adopt a systematic, published strategy for aid channel choice and shift from restrictive project-level earmarking to broader thematic funding to restore global cooperation.
-
5.
The article analyzes the deep ideological split within the Democratic Party regarding the future of U.S. foreign policy, pitting centrists against progressives. Centrists generally advocate for restoring a reformed U.S.-led international order and strengthening alliances, while progressives argue for a multipolar world that prioritizes transnational threats like climate change and AI over geopolitical competition. This division is most pronounced in the Middle East, where centrists push for greater pressure on Israel and a regional settlement, a shift largely welcomed by progressives. The core finding is that these internal debates threaten to consume a future administration with indecision, making it difficult for the U.S. to project a coherent and unified global strategy.