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 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 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 regulatory framework confronting unparalleled upheaval
The international system formed after 1945 was designed to avert renewed large‑scale warfare, encourage economic interdependence, and establish frameworks for shared security, and over the decades it broadened through institutions like the United Nations, NATO, the World Trade Organization, along with an extensive network of agreements and alliances that contributed to steadier relations among 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 shift, the report warns, risks replacing principled cooperation with ad hoc deals that favor short-term gains over long-term stability. Such an environment, it argues, undermines predictability, weakens trust among allies, and makes collective responses to global challenges far more difficult.
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 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 reflects growing 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 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 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.
Across the United States, Canada, major European economies, Japan, Brazil, and South Africa, at least half of respondents stated they somewhat or strongly disagreed with the idea that current US leadership is having a positive influence globally. This broad skepticism indicates that concerns about US policy stretch beyond traditional critics and resonate across varied political and cultural landscapes.
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 release of the report coincides with preparations for the Munich Security Conference, an annual gathering that brings together heads of state, ministers, military leaders, and security experts from around the world. Scheduled to run over three days in Munich, the event is expected to host more than 50 heads of state and government, underscoring its role as a key forum for strategic dialogue.
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 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 acknowledges that the existing system has not delivered prosperity or security equally. Addressing legitimate grievances, it suggests, requires reform rather than destruction. Strengthening institutions to better reflect contemporary realities may be more effective than abandoning them altogether.
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.
