Mark the first week of 2026 as the one in which the often overblown rhetoric of the Trump administration took a chilling turn into threats that have to be seen in the deeply alarming context of its actual actions.
There have been plenty of examples of a certain contempt for legalities, diplomacy and alliances until now both domestically and internationally since Donald Trump returned to the White House.
On the international stage that has mostly concerned perpetually unresolved battles over tariffs, backing (or not backing) Ukraine, alienating Europe, siding with Vladamir Putin, strategic bombings in Iran.
The world as we know it has been turned on its head
But this week Trump and his lieutenants have directly threatened both democratically and non-democratically elected governments — on the back of the internationally-illegal capture of now former president Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela.
Hubris unveiled the real reasons for these actions: Access to oil, but mostly because the United States can.
In a particularly agitated performance on CNN, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller said that “we live in a world in which you can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else”.
“But we live in a world, in the real world … that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power,” Miller said.
“These are the iron laws of the world. We’re a superpower. And under President Trump, we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower.”
In a subsequent interview with four journalists from the New York Times, Trump declared that his power as commander-in-chief is constrained only by his “own morality”.
Asked if there were any limits on his global powers, Trump said: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
“I don’t need international law,” he added. “I’m not looking to hurt people.”
When pressed further by the Times about whether his administration needed to abide by international law, Trump said, “I do”.
But he made clear he would be the arbiter when such constraints applied to the United States.
“It depends what your definition of international law is,” he said.
Clearly flushed with the military success of the raid into Caracas, threats had been made against Colombia, Cuba, Mexico and Greenland (a semi-autonomous part of Denmark which is a close US ally).
Even as European leaders and commentators earnestly tried to consider vaguely legitimate means scenarios by which the US could “take over” Greenland, Stephen Miller had a straight forward response.
How Greenlanders feel about Trump’s annexation talk
Asked to rule out the prospect — raised by Trump — of the US taking Greenland by force, Miller said that “nobody is gonna fight the US militarily over the future of Greenland”.
“The United States is the power of NATO. For the United States to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend NATO and NATO interests, obviously, Greenland should be part of the United States”.
Trump made clear to the Times that he wouldn’t be satisfied with just being able to, for example, re-open military bases in Greenland,
“Ownership is very important,” he said, “because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success”.
The New York Times interview occurred just hours after, at home in Minneapolis, a 37-year-old mother of three was shot three times in the face and killed by ICE agents in front of a phalanx of cameras.
Their actions were defended by Trump and his officials.
Local police subsequently reported that their efforts to investigate the incident were being blocked by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Cracks are showing
Both the developments in foreign policy — and rhetoric — as well as the shock of Americans and the world seeing the killing of Renee Good in Minneapolis seem to have produced some serious cracks in Donald Trump’s political base.
Republicans crossed the Senate floor to support legislation aimed at preventing him engaging in further military operations in Venezuela (though seems likely to be more demonstrative than effective), as well as a range of legislation in the House of Representatives.
Trump abandons international organisations to be ‘America First’
State and city representatives in Minnesota — and other states — signalled they would both seek to prosecute the ICE agents involved under state laws, and escalate their attempts to remove from their jurisdictions.
Commentator Anne Applebaum noted that “if might makes right, if the US gets to do what it wants using any tools it wants in its own sphere, then there is no need for transparency, democracy, or legitimacy”.
That rule, it seems, applies both domestically and internationally.
Donald Trump has made clear his contempt for the powers of Congress to stop his foreign policy actions just as, according to Applebaum, “the concerns of ordinary people who live in smaller nations don’t need to be taken into account, because they will not be granted any agency”.
And what of larger nations? Notably Russia and China with whom Trump sees the world divided into three spheres of influence.
Carnegie Institute analyst Tong Zhao says the “claim that the erosion of international law and norms does not affect the behaviour of illiberal states such as China underestimates the universal human need to feel righteous — and the particular intensity with which illiberal systems manufacture self-righteousness”.
“Whatever their public or private statements, he says, “they often sincerely believe that their government’s policies are morally responsible and legally righteous — sometimes even more so than those of Western democracies”.
“Russian President Vladimir Putin would not lecture at length on his version of history — his sense of historical justice and legality — if he did not feel profoundly self-righteous. Chinese President Xi Jinping likewise appears genuinely convinced that he stands on the right side of history. “
“In this context, controversial US actions such as the Venezuela operation — and the international community’s tacit acceptance — matter greatly.
“They allow authoritarian leaders to lower their perceived thresholds of acceptable behaviour. Norms need not disappear entirely for the standard to become comparative rather than absolute.”
Loading The West has been here before
The US — as a superpower — is obviously more conspicuous than others when it flouts the rules.
But it is not as if the West has not been confronted with other allies who have behaved in ways regarded as equally illegal in terms of international law.
Israel’s relentless moves to expand its borders from those on which it was originally settled continue.
Even after the Gaza ceasefire it continues to hold more than 58 per cent of the Gaza Strip, and around 60 per cent of the West Bank.
Israel banning dozens of charities from Gaza
It has also continued to occupy around 600 square miles of territory in Syria, as well as a slab of southern Lebanon.
Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry says a further 425 Palestinians have been killed since the ceasefire began.
But the world’s interest seems to have moved on.
Australia has the same direct interest in the dismantling of the international order we have seen this week as the rest of the world, but also a direct interest given our close diplomatic and defence ties with the United States which last month included an announced increase in the number of US bombers that would be deployed in Northern Australia, and upgraded facilities to let them operate.
And we have an interest in what happens in Taiwan. Â
Tong Zhao says China has shifted the focus of its Taiwan policy from primarily opposing independence to actively pursuing unification.
“Despite extensive preparations for military coercion, international reaction remains a central consideration in Beijing’s calculations”, he says.
Watching the international community accept recent US actions, he says, “will almost certainly convince Beijing that a military move against Taiwan — potentially beginning with the removal or capture of Taiwanese leaders in a so-called law enforcement operation — would be far more justifiable and far easier for the world to swallow than the US attack on Venezuela.”
Laura Tingle is the ABC’s Global Affairs Editor.Â