One year into Trump's new take on "America First", what is similar and what is different to his first term? And what lessons can we draw for the future of the rules-based order?

These questions prompted me to write a short piece for the International Affairs blog that identifies three lessons we can draw from Trump 1.0 about responding to renewed institutional contestation by Trump 2.0:

1. Trump's contestation is strategic and selective. In institutions the US still dominates, Trump 1.0 limited contestation to criticism and reform demands. In institutions that evade U.S. control, Trump 1.0 escalated contestation to subversion or exit. While the scope and speed of US contestation of international institutions by Trump 2.0 is unprecedented, a closer look reveals that the same pattern continues.

2. Institutions can resist Trump's contestation. Most institutions proved resilient to the challenges of Trump 1.0 – cooperation continued, remaining members filled financial and political gaps, and some institutions even emerged stronger. Only a minority experienced a serious decline or collapse.

3. Institutional resilience depends on alternative leaders. Other Western powers stepped up and adapted institutions to the challenge posed by Trump 1.0 – sometimes accommodating US demands, sometimes defending core principles, and sometimes filling the gap left by the U.S. Western powers and the EU can once again maintain the rules-based order despite Trump 2.0‘s power politics!

My 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.