Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

By Lawrence S. Wittner

In recent years, Donald Trump has frequently billed himself as a bringer of peace. During 2023 and 2024, as he campaigned for re-election, he declared at least 53 times that he would end the Ukraine war within 24 hours of taking office or even before that. Referring to peace for Ukraine before a gathering in Council Bluffs, Iowa, in July 2023, he insisted: “I’ll get that done within 24 hours. Everyone says, ‘Oh, no, you can’t.’ Absolutely, I can. Absolutely I can.”

Trump has vowed to terminate other wars as well. Promising to end the war in Gaza and “bring peace back to the Middle East,” Trump assured audiences that “we will return the world to peace.” Indeed, in his Jan. 20, 2025, inaugural address, he proclaimed that “we will measure our success . . . by the wars we end.” And “my proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker.”

Even so, after more than four months of Trump’s return to the White House, these promises have not been fulfilled. The war in Ukraine continues to rage, without letup. According to a New York Times analysis of May 22, Trump had decided to walk away from the issue, telling Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine and other European leaders “that Russia and Ukraine would have to find a solution to the war themselves.” Nor did the Trump administration make a serious attempt to alter the horrendous situation in Gaza. Instead, Trump gave Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a free hand and the weaponry to continue to pulverize Gaza and its 2 million inhabitants. Meanwhile, when it came to Sudan, undergoing an extraordinarily brutal civil war that has caused the worst humanitarian crisis ever recorded, the Trump administration has remained remarkably aloof.

The most obvious reason for Trump’s failure as a peacemaker is that he is much less interested in fostering peace than in expanding U.S. national power. During his first term in office, under the banner of “America First,” Trump substantially increased the U.S. military budget, withdrew from nuclear arms control and disarmament treaties, and publicly threatened nuclear war against both North Korea and Iran. Proclaiming himself “a nationalist,” he disparaged the United Nations, attacked the International Criminal Court and withdrew the United States from the UN Human Rights Council and the World Health Organization. He certainly didn’t end any wars or even bring substantial U.S. military forces back from overseas. Although Trump did negotiate an agreement to remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan, he later condemned the Biden administration for implementing it.

Trump’s priorities have grown even more apparent during his current term in office. Startling U.S. allies and other observers, he has already called for a U.S. government takeover of Panama, Greenland, Canada and Gaza. As recently as this May, he announced that he didn’t rule out employing military force to seize Greenland. Trump also proposed a $1 trillion U.S. military budget for fiscal 2026 (a 13.4 percent increase) and again took action to (to which it currently owes $1.5 billion in unpaid dues) and other international organizations. Such policies are in line with his January 2025 inaugural address, in which he stated: “We will again build the strongest military the world has ever seen. . . . The United States will once again consider itself a growing nation—one that increases our wealth, expands our territory . . . and carries our flag into new and beautiful horizons.”

Admittedly, Trump’s go-it-alone empire-building is limited somewhat by his participation in an emerging international right-wing alliance. But other participants in this alliance―powerful authoritarian, reactionary rulers (notably Vladimir Putin, Narendra Modi, Benjamin Netanyahu and Mohammed bin Salman) and right-wing political parties—are primarily interested in national aggrandizement. Consequently, although it is possible for them to work out mutually satisfactory deals―for example, Putin gobbling up Ukraine in exchange for Trump gobbling up Greenland and Panama―it’s more probable that, like bargains among thieves, their agreements won’t last long.

Furthermore, even without Trump at the helm of the U.S. government, it’s unlikely that a different U.S. president could make much progress toward creating a peaceful world. After all, most countries do not view the United States as an impartial force, but rather as a nation that, like other nations, has pursued its own interests throughout its history. Yes, as a wealthy great power, the United States could contribute to the peaceful resolution of conflict. But there is too much suspicion of its intentions—or of the intentions of any single nation—to enable it to rally the world behind a program for peace.

By contrast, the United Nations, which brings together virtually all the world’s nations, has greater credibility. As the collective voice of the international community, it certainly has the potential to serve as an impartial arbiter. Moreover, it was established in 1945 with the proclaimed goal of saving “succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” Why not use it for this purpose?

A key objection to the United Nations playing this role is that it is too weak to be effective. But what if it were strengthened? What if the power of the veto in the UN Security Council were reduced? What if the power of the UN General Assembly to handle international security issues were enhanced? What if the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court were increased? What if the United Nations were provided with an adequate source of funding?

Given the aggressive priorities of the Trump administration and its right-wing allies, it makes sense for them to be working—as they are—to subvert and destroy these global institutions.

But the people of the world have a great deal to gain by strengthening international organizations that are genuinely committed to fostering peace.

(Dr. Lawrence Wittner is professor of history emeritus at SUNY Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press).)