The international framework that has supported decades of relative stability is under growing strain, with a new global security assessment cautioning that forceful political upheaval, largely propelled by US leadership, is hastening the decline of established rules, alliances, and collective norms.
According to the Munich Security Report 2026, the world is now experiencing what it labels “wrecking-ball politics,” a governing style in which forceful disruption takes precedence over stability and collective agreement, and the report contends that this shift is putting unprecedented pressure on the postwar international order, exposing it to its most significant challenges since its inception and generating repercussions that reach far beyond conventional geopolitical competition.
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 regulatory framework confronting unparalleled upheaval
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 contends that this framework faces an immediate and serious threat, noting that more than eighty years after its foundations were laid, the system is not simply strained but is being intentionally taken apart. The document’s wording is strikingly direct for a text typically defined by diplomatic restraint, underscoring the authors’ view that gradual weakening has shifted toward purposeful destabilization.
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 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 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 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.
This concern is not presented as abstract speculation. Instead, it is linked directly to observable trends in public opinion and political behavior across multiple regions. As trust in institutions declines and inequalities persist, populations are increasingly skeptical that governments can deliver meaningful solutions.
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
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 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 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.
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 contends, encourages additional actors to embrace comparable transactional or unilateral approaches, hastening the erosion of cooperative frameworks.
The Munich Security Conference at the center of attention
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 be present at the conference. In his place, the United States will be represented by Secretary of State Marco Rubio along with a substantial delegation from Congress. Conference organizers report that more than 50 legislators are expected to take part, reflecting ongoing involvement despite the president’s absence.
The report notes that representation at this level maintains channels of communication, but it also highlights the symbolic significance of presidential absence at a moment when leadership and reassurance are in high demand.
An international order at a crossroads
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 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 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.
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.
