Trump has (again) withdrawn from a host of international institutions. Déjà vu? 

In the latest ENSURED blog, Tim Heinkelmann-Wild identifies three lessons from Trump 1.0 on how to respond to renewed institutional contestation:

1. Trump's contestation is strategic and selective. During Trump 1.0, the US limited its contestation to criticism and reform demands when it dominated an institution, but escalated contestation to withdrawal when institutions escaped US control. A closer look at the most recent withdrawals shows that the same pattern continues under the latest Trump administration.

2. Institutions can resist Trump's contestation. Most institutions remained resilient despite withdrawals during Trump’s first term: only a few declined or collapsed. Cooperation continued, other members filled the gaps, and some institutions even grew stronger.

3. Western powers must help institutions adapt. Experience from Trump 1.0 shows that active engagement by Western powers is crucial for institutional resilience. By accommodating US demands where possible, and defending institutions when necessary, Western states helped contain contestation and keep cooperation alive.

What's needed to defend IOs against Trump's power plays: decisive action from the EU & its allies in the Global South.

The blog post draws on the results of a systematic analysis of how Trump 1.0 contested international institutions and with what consequences, recently published in International Affairs.