Congratulations, America. You’re Now a Rogue Nation

When we use the term “rogue nation,” we are usually referring to places like North Korea, Iran, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Libya under Muammar Gaddafi, Syria under Assad, or Sudan under al-Bashir. These states meet certain criteria, such as being ruled by authoritarian or totalitarian governments that severely restrict human rights, sponsoring terrorism, or seeking to proliferate weapons of mass destruction. Rogue nations operate outside of the bounds of law, both domestically and internationally. They use force irresponsibly, both at home and abroad, and oppress or otherwise mistreat significant elements of their own population.

What evidence do we have that the United States can now take its place among this list of rogue nations?

Rogue nations use military force without broad international approval. In the past, specific acts taken by the United States could fall into this category. Critics – domestic and international – sometimes cite U.S. actions as examples of rogue behavior. These include US actions in pursuit of the Global War on Terror, and occasional drone strikes or limited attacks on military or civilian targets without the participation of the United Nations, NATO, or other important allies. However, the current Republican president and his congressional and administration allies have taken this to an entirely different level.

The administration has continued or expanded withdrawal or disengagement from key international agreements and organizations. For example, it formally exited the World Health Organization again, reduced financial contributions to the United Nations, and threatened to withdraw from NATO if member states did not meet funding demands.

Such actions undermine multilateral cooperation and the image of the U.S. as a global leader committed to collective governance, making it appear more isolationist and transactional.

Rogue nations operate without adequate checks on the use of force both inside the country and internationally. The United States has operated for more than 200 years with a functioning set of constitutional checks and balances that keep the democracy in line. However, the current Republican president has fractured these norms as well.

In 2025, the Trump administration increased pressure on the Department of Justice and federal agencies to target political opponents and dissenters, including publicly threatening to fire officials who did not align with political loyalty tests.

The administration also questioned the legitimacy of election infrastructure, spreading misinformation about voter fraud without evidence, potentially undermining public confidence in electoral integrity.

Rogue nations dismiss concerns about global security and humanitarian efforts, focusing on what’s good for themselves instead. It is not an exaggeration to say that the United States has led the development of these global cooperative efforts – not simply because they are the right thing to do, but because they go a long way toward creating a peaceful and prosperous world. They haven’t always worked, and sometimes the United States has been a negative force in these efforts. However, the current Republican president’s “America First” agenda has turned the United States away from this role in the world.

The current administration cut funding to foreign aid programs, including humanitarian relief in conflict zones such as Yemen and Syria, as part of budget austerity framed around “America First” priorities.

It escalated unilateral military actions, such as expanded drone strikes without congressional approval or clear oversight, increasing civilian casualties and destabilizing regions without coordinated international support.

The post-World War II international establishment has created mechanisms for the implementation and enforcement of international law. Although the United States’ involvement in these institutions has been spotty, it has generally respected and operated within the system’s norms.

The current Republican administration explicitly ignored rulings by international bodies, such as the International Court of Justice, refusing to comply with decisions on issues like detaining foreign nationals or trade disputes.

It escalated extraterritorial sanctions that harmed allies and neutral countries alike, leading to diplomatic friction and accusations of economic coercion.

It is beyond ironic that just yesterday, the current Republican president went to The Hague to meet with NATO leaders – apparently taking a victory lap after an attack that he likened to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, conducted in secrecy that he said was better than any operation in history.

D-Day would like a word.

The Hague is associated with the global system that emerged after World War II – largely at the behest of the United States and other allied nations that wanted to tamp down the authoritarianism that had been the breeding ground for two global conflicts within 30 years. Here’s a list:

• International Court of Justice

• International Criminal Court

• Permanent Court of Arbitration

• International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals

• Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

• Eurojust

• Hague Conference on Private International Law

• International Centre for Counter-Terrorism

• International Commission on Missing Persons

• Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization

• The Hague Academy of International Law

• Carnegie Foundation

• The Hague Institute for Innovation of Law

• Word Forum The Hague

Because the current Republican president knows nothing about history, he doesn’t understand the significance of peacekeeping. He thinks that the only way to exhibit strength is by the use of military power; he has no respect for the “soft power” of influence and mutual benefit. He is a bully in all of his personal and business interactions. He is a bully in his actions as president. And he is a bully on the international stage.

He (and a lot of people around him) profoundly misunderstand what President Theodore Roosevelt called the “bully pulpit” of the presidency. He meant that his visibility as president gave him a bully (euphemism for superb or wonderful) platform from which to advocate an agenda. The current Republican president thinks the presidency is a mechanism for bullying his domestic and international opponents into submission.

As I’m finishing up this piece, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is ranting at the press corps. His performance is clearly intended for an audience of one — the current Republican president, who loves surrogates who bully the people the president considers to be his enemies. This outrageous behavior could only be condoned in a rogue nation, where the rule of law and the norms of behavior are subsumed to the whims of an authoritarian.