Last week, US President Donald Trump stirred widespread concern with a series of erratic statements. In a speech at the United Nations, he managed to offend multiple member states, including Brazil and the United Kingdom, while undermining the institution’s authority itself, Bloomberg columnist Andreas Kluth writes.

On the same day, he ad-libbed yet another reversal on the Russia-Ukraine war, stating that Kiev could “fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form” because Russia appeared to him as a “paper tiger".

This comment contradicted his earlier positions, Kluth states, including blaming Ukraine for provoking the war and suggesting that Kiev had “no cards” and must surrender territory.

Kluth takes a look back at the meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, stating that he welcomed the Russian president with ceremonial flair and inconsistently demanded and then withdrew ultimatums regarding ceasefire talks. The Bloomberg columnist adds that Trump continues to assert that the Ukraine war would never have occurred if he had been president in 2022.

Eroding trust: A pattern across administrations

A US president’s words and actions resonate globally among allies, adversaries, and nations navigating in between. In Trump’s case, Kluth writes, adversaries such as Putin have interpreted his unpredictability not as strength, but as weakness.

Kluth writes that the Kremlin appears emboldened since Trump returned to office. Russia has escalated attacks on Ukraine, expanded gray-zone operations targeting NATO members, and allegedly entered airspace in Poland, Romania, Estonia, and Scandinavian countries. Kluth states that such actions have yet to trigger a response from Washington.

A stream of undermining credibility

According to the Bloomberg columnist, this erosion of credibility is not unique to Trump. Former US President Barack Obama also damaged the United States’ standing when he failed to act after drawing a red line against Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons in 2013.

During Trump’s first term, Kluth states that he similarly undermined US resolve, threatening the DPRK before praising Kim Jong Un, and negotiating a withdrawal deal with the Taliban that eventually led to a disastrous exit from Afghanistan under US President Joe Biden.

The cumulative result of these actions is a broad recalibration by other states. Kluth writes that US allies have grown wary, while adversaries are increasingly testing limits. Putin, for instance, shows no signs of falling back on gains in the Ukraine front. In the Asia-Pacific, Chinese President Xi Jinping and DPRK President Kim Jong Un may be reassessing their strategic calculations, perceiving a weakened United States.

Meanwhile, some of America’s strategic partners are hedging their bets. Saudi Arabia recently signed a defensive pact with Pakistan following an Israeli strike on its Gulf neighbor Qatar, a state allied to the US but left unaided in the incident. India, for its part, maintains ties with both Moscow and Beijing, avoiding alignment with Washington. Such moves reflect deepening skepticism toward American reliability.

What a credibility deficit means for the United States

The concept of credibility in international relations has long been debated. The Bloomberg writer reflects on the 1938 Munich Agreement, a failed attempt at appeasement, and Cold War deterrence theories. The idea that states must demonstrate resolve to be taken seriously has shaped global diplomacy. Credibility once rested on the threat of devastating retaliation to maintain balance and deter conflict.

After the Cold War, scholars questioned the value of reputation, with some concluding that it was not worth fighting for. Kluth cites Keren Yarhi-Milo of Columbia University, who has noted that, particularly after failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, US policymakers doubted whether credibility justified the use of force. However, these assumptions are being reexamined in 2025, as rising tensions expose the costs of perceived weakness.

Historically, Kluth says parallels highlight how adversaries perceive weakness. Just as Hitler viewed Britain and France as lacking resolve in 1938, today's rivals may interpret US inconsistency as an opportunity.

Citing Cold War strategist Thomas Schelling, Kluth says that “face is one of the few things worth fighting over.” Losing face, and by extension credibility, invites escalation.

Today’s multipolar world: Rising threats and new alliances

The Bloomberg columnist says that global dynamics are shifting. The decline of US credibility is encouraging new alliances and emboldening rival powers. From the Gulf to Eastern Europe and East Asia, states are adjusting to a perceived vacuum of leadership. As alliances shift and geopolitical tension rises, the risks of miscalculation and conflict increase.

Kluth says that Trump’s foreign policy approach, driven more by personal instinct and spectacle than strategy, has deepened the United States’ credibility crisis. His reliance on what some have called the “madman theory” appears less a display of strength and more a pattern of indecision and disarray. As allies grow anxious and adversaries grow bolder, the global order becomes less stable.

Bloomberg's Kluth says the consequences of this credibility gap are already unfolding, and unless reversed, they could lead to a more dangerous and unpredictable world. American credibility, once lost, may be far more difficult to regain, and the cost of doing so could be perilously high.