• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Steve Feldstein"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "democracy",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "DCG",
  "programs": [
    "Democracy, Conflict, and Governance"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Southern, Eastern, and Western Africa",
    "East Asia",
    "Japan",
    "Eastern Europe",
    "Western Europe",
    "United Kingdom",
    "France",
    "Germany"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Democracy",
    "Foreign Policy",
    "Global Governance"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Despite Trump’s Shameful G-7 Showing, U.S. Credibility Still Intact

Trump’s behavior has not wholly damaged U.S. credibility — yet. But over time, his unilateral volatility threatens to become the dominant narrative about the U.S., eclipsing past values and leadership.

Link Copied
By Steve Feldstein
Published on Jun 12, 2018
Program mobile hero image

Program

Democracy, Conflict, and Governance

The Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program is a leading source of independent policy research, writing, and outreach on global democracy, conflict, and governance. It analyzes and seeks to improve international efforts to reduce democratic backsliding, mitigate conflict and violence, overcome political polarization, promote gender equality, and advance pro-democratic uses of new technologies.

Learn More

Source: The Hill

The disastrous Group of Seven (G-7) meeting in Quebec, where President Trump lashed out as his fellow leaders and singled out Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as “dishonest and weak,” raises an important question: Just how much is Trump’s erratic behavior damaging U.S. standing and credibility in the world?

Nearly 17 months into Trump’s presidency, he is upending the western alliance and fundamentally calling into question the reliability of the U.S. as an economic, political and security partner. He has inflamed tensions by slapping punitive steel and aluminum tariffs on America’s closest allies.

He has repeatedly ignored the entreaties of France, the U.K. and Germany to reconsider leaving the Paris climate change agreement or to stay in the Iran nuclear deal. Even while Trump lacks basic rapport with his fellow western democratic leaders, he has taken undeniable delight in sharing company with autocrats and strongmen.

Consequently, many are asking whether Trump’s latest behavior is finally leading to a “major reorientation of allies and partnerships worldwide.” How much is Trump damaging U.S. credibility and reputation?

I believe that in the short-term, the U.S. can weather the Trump storm for two reasons. First, the U.S. has built up a sufficient reservoir of international good will so that other countries will continue to give us a pass, notwithstanding the latest histrionics from Trump.

Second, the U.S. retains a disproportionate level of influence — economically and militarily — that compels other countries to deal with us. But over time, Trump’s leadership will steadily erode U.S. credibility. The longer Trump stays in power, the higher the likelihood that U.S. leadership and authority will dramatically diminish.

Why does credibility matter? A country with a high amount of credibility is able to build important alliances because potential allies are not worried about betrayal or potential abandonment. Credibility allows a country to deter adversaries and prevent costly wars through strength of reputation rather than through fighting.

Conventional wisdom says that a country is only as trustworthy as its last words or actions, and that credibility can dissipate swiftly (Will Rogers’ quip comes to mind: “It takes a lifetime to build a good reputation, but you can lose it in a minute”).

But that conventional view of credibility is not accurate.

A country’s reputation does not ebb and flow based on the week-to-week actions of its leader. While current leadership is a critical aspect of credibility, it is just one of many ingredients that countries use to evaluate reputation. In other words, a number of factors come into play when it comes to shaping a country’s reputation.

For example, what actions has the country undertaken in the past? What present interests does the country have? What capabilities and resolve does the country possess in order to defend those interests?

The good news is that most of these elements remain positive for the U.S. Despite the recent rashness of the Trump administration, the U.S. enjoys a solid reputation for steadfastness and resolve going back decades.

It retains enormous capabilities to defend its interests. As ongoing wars against the Islamic State and the Taliban demonstrate, the U.S. also maintains sufficient resolve to deploy and wield force when necessary.

At the same time, past actions and capabilities are not permanent conditions. The longer Trump lurches the U.S. along an unpredictable path, the more the world will begin to forget the United States' extended history as a guarantor of the international system.

The more Trump pursues a narrow definition of U.S. interests that calls treaty commitments and longstanding partnerships into question, the greater the risk to U.S. credibility, particularly when the next major crisis erupts.

Trump’s behavior has not wholly damaged U.S. credibility — yet. But over time, his unilateral volatility threatens to become the dominant narrative about the U.S., eclipsing past values and leadership.

Trump’s performance at the G-7 summit was embarrassing and cringe worthy; but it was not fatally damaging to U.S. credibility. However, if the Trump administration announces more unilateral tariffs and additional departures from international treaties, it will be harder and harder for the U.S. to maintain its good reputation.

Such an outcome would put the U.S. into uncharted territory — mercurial leadership that is increasingly isolated and decreasingly trusted around the world.

The article was originally published in The Hill.

About the Author

Steve Feldstein

Senior Fellow, Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program

Steve Feldstein is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program. His research focuses on technology, national security, the global context for democracy, and U.S. foreign policy.

    Recent Work

  • Q&A
    What We Know About Drone Use in the Iran War

      Steve Feldstein, Dara Massicot

  • Q&A
    Are All Wars Now Drone Wars?
      • Jon Bateman

      Jon Bateman, Steve Feldstein

Steve Feldstein
Senior Fellow, Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program
Steve Feldstein
DemocracyForeign PolicyGlobal GovernanceNorth AmericaUnited StatesSouthern, Eastern, and Western AfricaEast AsiaJapanEastern EuropeWestern EuropeUnited KingdomFranceGermany

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    What Does Nuclear Proliferation in East Asia Mean for Russia?

    Troubled by the growing salience of nuclear debates in East Asia, Moscow has responded in its usual way: with condemnation and threats. But by exacerbating insecurity, Russia is forcing South Korea and Japan to consider radical security options.

      James D.J. Brown

  • Vietnam's Top Leader To Lam meets with young representatives from China and Vietnam participating in the "Red Study Tours" at the Great Hall of the People on April 15, 2026 in Beijing, China. T
    Commentary
    Why Vietnam Is Swinging in China’s Direction

    Hanoi and Beijing have long treated each other as distant cousins rather than comrades in arms. That might be changing as both sides draw closer to hedge against uncertainty and America’s erratic behavior.

      • Nguyen-khac-giang

      Nguyễn Khắc Giang

  • Smoke rising over a  bridge
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The Iran War Is a Stress Test for Gulf States

    The conflict is exposing the flaws and fissures of their domestic governance and social cohesion.

      Frederic Wehrey, Charles H. Johnson

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is the EU Ready for Rapprochement With the UK?

    Closer EU-UK ties could help address urgent European concerns. But is the EU ready for rapprochement with the United Kingdom?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    A Military Balance Sheet in the U.S. and Israeli War With Iran

    In an interview, Jim Lamson discusses the ongoing regional conflict and sees an unclear picture when it comes to winners and losers. 

      Michael Young

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.