Trump's 'Predatory Hegemony' Reshapes Global Power

"The United States is like a big, beautiful department store, and everybody wants a piece of that store." Donald Trump'sApril 2025 comment captures his transactional worldview perfectly. Harvard's Stephen Walt has now given this approach a name: predatory hegemony.

When Allies Become Prey

Walt's analysis in Foreign Affairs reveals a fundamental shift in American grand strategy. Unlike the "benevolent hegemon" of the Cold War era that helped allies prosper to contain the Soviet Union, Trump's America treats every relationship as zero-sum. The goal isn't mutual benefit—it's extracting maximum advantage from every interaction.

This represents a seismic change from 80 years of American leadership. During the Cold War, Washington invested in allies' recovery, created rules for mutual prosperity, and gave weaker states a voice in decisions. Even during the unipolar moment after 1991, America believed that spreading liberal values would benefit everyone.

Now, Trump views allies and adversaries through the same lens: sources of potential extraction. As he put it through Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, "they need our money."

The Extraction Playbook

Predatory hegemony operates through systematic coercion. Walt identifies the key tools: embargoes, financial sanctions, beggar-thy-neighbor trade policies, and currency manipulation. The goal is forcing others to accept terms that favor America's economy while adjusting their behavior on non-economic issues.

We're already seeing this playbook in action. European allies face pressure to increase defense spending to 2% of GDP while buying American weapons. Asian partners must choose between Chinese markets and American security guarantees. Even traditional allies like Canada and Mexico find themselves targets of tariff threats.

The strategy works because many countries remain dependent on American markets or military protection. They'll tolerate coercion if the alternatives—Chinese dominance or Russian aggression—seem worse.

Rituals of Submission

Walt notes that predatory hegemons demand symbolic acts of deference. Think of ancient Athens extracting tribute from weaker city-states, or China's historical tributary system. Modern versions might include public praise for American leadership, support for controversial policies, or ceremonial acknowledgments of American superiority.

We've seen glimpses of this during Trump's first term: foreign leaders staying at Trump properties, lavish state dinners designed to flatter the president, and public statements of gratitude for American protection. These aren't mere diplomatic courtesies—they're power displays that reinforce hierarchies.

The Multipolarity Problem

Here's the strategic miscalculation: predatory hegemony made sense when America was the only game in town. But in today's "lopsided multipolarity," other options exist. China offers alternative markets, development financing, and technology partnerships. Russia provides energy and military equipment. Regional powers like India, Brazil, and Turkey pursue independent paths.

Walt argues this approach will ultimately backfire. When a hegemon becomes predatory, it creates incentives for others to reduce their dependence. We're already seeing this in the growth of non-dollar trade, alternative payment systems like China's CBDC, and regional security arrangements that bypass American leadership.

The European Union's strategic autonomy push, ASEAN's careful balancing act, and even close allies' hedging strategies all reflect this dynamic. Countries want the benefits of American partnership without the costs of American domination.

The Trust Deficit

Perhaps most damaging is the erosion of American credibility. Benevolent hegemony worked because partners believed America would honor its commitments and respect their interests. Predatory hegemony sends the opposite signal: that America will exploit any advantage, regardless of past promises or future consequences.

This creates what economists call a "commitment problem." If partners can't trust American promises, they're less likely to make the investments—military, economic, or political—that American leadership requires. The result is a downward spiral of mistrust and reduced cooperation.