Yes, the decline of empires has long been as much a part of history, and often as dramatic, as their rise. However, Trump-style decline should, I think, still be seen as a rarity in the history of empires. Though he's seldom written about this way, Donald J. Trump is quite literally the personification of American imperial decline. In truth, he's acting it out in an all too vivid fashion -- and if I'm already repeating myself here, it's because, strange as it (and he) may seem, he's almost never treated that way.
He shouldn't be Donald J. Trump at all, but Donald D. (for decline) Trump and he's taking down what was certainly the greatest imperial power in history, the country that, in its own complex fashion, controlled so much of the world, though not (in the old imperial style) as colonies. And give him full credit when it comes to decline: the man who ran for president a second time on the blunt campaign slogan "drill, baby, drill" is also hard at work ensuring that we humans do ever less to preserve our endangered planet. From the mad further burning of fossil fuels to the closing down of wind farms to the opening of more than a billion acres of coastal waters to new fossil-fuel production, Donald Trump is personifying not just DECLINE but the climate-changification of planet Earth in a fashion that should be considered historically unique because, in the past, the decline of empires never involved the decline of the planet itself as a potentially livable place for our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.
And in the process, "our" president has handed over any possibility of saving this planet to what could be the next great imperial power (if there continue to be such things), since he's functionally turned over everything from the production of green power to the production of electric vehicles to China, the rising power (if such a concept can even exist anymore) on this planet. After all, that country's clean energy sector is already worth an estimated $2.2 trillion and growing fast. With all of that in mind, let TomDispatch regular Alfred McCoy, the author most recently of an instant classic history book, Cold War on Five Continents, explore the world "after America" on this ever-stranger planet of ours. Tom
After America
The Causes and Consequences of U.S. Global Decline
By Alfred McCoy
While Washington's war with Iran drags on, month after month, without any end in sight, the world is witnessing the very real limits of U.S. global power. As President Donald Trump lurches repeatedly from threats of devastation to promises of peace, it's becoming increasingly clear that U.S. military might is no longer capable of subduing even a mid-sized power like Iran, much less holding the rest of the world in its thrall.
Amid all the drama of air raids, drone strikes, and naval blockades, there are deeper geopolitical forces at play that lend a lasting historical import to events in the Persian Gulf -- dynamics best seen by comparing two newspaper editorials with revealing similarities despite the 80 years separating their publication.
Writing in 1942, during some of Britain's darkest days in World War II, the editors of the venerable London Times looked far beyond the relentless German attacks on their forces in Egypt or the Nazi U-Boat sinkings of Royal Navy ships in the Atlantic to predict their empire's future with an uncommon prescience. With its contradictory motto of "Imperium et Libertas" (Empire and Liberty), the vast British Empire, which still covered a quarter of the globe, had already become what those editors called "a self-liquidating concern." Once the "temporary circumstances" that had allowed Britain's ascent -- naval dominance, industrial preeminence, and "the relative weakness of rival states" -- faded, that empire's "ultimate reliance on coercion" could no longer hold. Ready for self-governance, Britain's many colonies, the editors suggested, would soon begin breaking away and so eclipse the empire. And that prediction couldn't have been more accurate. Within five years of that editorial's publication, the British Empire had already started to break apart.
Writing in a May 2026 edition of the New York Times, contributing editor Christopher Caldwell made a strikingly similar prediction about the future of U.S. global hegemony. Under the provocative headline "America Is Officially an Empire in Decline," Caldwell noted some unsettling parallels between the fate of America today and Great Britain 80 years ago. Back then, England was "deindustrializing, overcommitted, complacent," and found itself "essentially bankrupt" by the end of World War II. Apart from its "ill-fated attempt" to seize the Suez Canal from Egypt in 1956, however, it managed to decolonize in a successful fashion by giving up "territories it could no longer afford." As he points out, Britain even "wound up on reasonably good terms with its former colonial possessions."
At the start of his second term as president in 2025, Donald Trump, Caldwell continued, "had a chance of pulling off something similar" by withdrawing "to a less expansive sphere of influence" and "refocusing American attention on the Western Hemisphere." Caldwell considered that strategy potentially "workable" since "imperial systems, whatever you call them, last only as long as their means are adequate to their ends." Instead of keeping to that plan, however, Trump "has overextended the empire dangerously" by his intervention in Iran, which has now become nothing less than a "watershed in the decline of the American empire."
To test the probability of Caldwell's prediction coming true, we need to go beyond the immediacy of the Iran crisis to explore both the deeper causes of U.S. global decline and its likely long-term consequences for both the United States and the rest of the world.
Explaining U.S. Imperial Decline
Since most Americans came late (if at all) to the realization that their country was indeed an imperial power, and a stunningly powerful one at that, they have generally remained oblivious to its aging and the inevitable erosion of global power that accompanies such aging. Ever since, in the late eighteenth century, English scholar Edward Gibbon published his monumental, multi-volume study, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, succeeding imperial rulers have tended to assume that their imperial realms would last, like ancient Rome's, half a millennium or more. Adolf Hitler, with his dream of "the Thousand-Year Reich," was hardly the only one to share such an illusion.
But the modern age, with its rapid economic and technological change, has only accelerated imperial decline. Britain's sprawling global empire lasted just 90 years (1857-1947) and France's African empire, covering a quarter of that continent, was about the same, while the Soviet empire in Eastern Europe barely lasted 40 years (1945-1989). So, for the U.S. global imperium to have survived for 80 years (1945-2026) should be considered the most anyone could realistically expect for a modern empire.
Since the U.S.-led global order -- exemplified by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) -- had indeed presided over 80 years of sustained global economic growth, there is a distinctly American twist to the British concept of the "self-liquidating concern." As the rest of the world enjoyed a rapid economic recovery from the ravages of World War II, America's share of the global economy declined from an overwhelmingly dominant 50% in 1945 to less than half that figure today. Using an index called PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) that measures the real value of economic growth, the IMF calculates that, in 2026, China is producing 20% of global economic output, the U.S. just 15%, and the European Union (EU) 14%.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
Post Article Comment and Rate This Article
