US Foreign Policy and the SurRealism of the Liberal World Order

The paper seeks to understand contemporary U.S. foreign-policy through the lens of a global order that is simultaneously more bipolar and multipolar. While the United States and China form the structural poles of an emerging bipolar rivalry - visible in technology competition, geoeconomic decoupling, and alliance consolidation - the international system (so far the LWO) also displays strong regional multipolar dynamics shaped by actors such as the EU, India, Russia, and an increasingly assertive and fragmented Global South. This dual structure complicates U.S. strategic choices, producing policy outcomes that cannot be explained solely by traditional great-power competition or liberal-internationalist frameworks. The paper analyzes how this hybrid order shapes and is shaped by U.S. approaches to and in major geopolitical theaters and issues: relations with China, Russia, and India; responses to the war in Ukraine and crises in the Middle East and Latin America; alliance management within NATO and minilateral formats; and the recalibration of economic statecraft through tariffs, industrial policy, and supply-chain restructuring. It also examines how domestic politics influence foreign-policy coherence at a time when the United States simultaneously seeks to maintain global leadership and adapt to structural change in the Liberal World Order. Methodologically, the paper draws on interdisciplinary insights to conceptualize a system in which global bipolarity coexists with regional multipolarity, producing overlapping spheres of influence, hedging behavior, and parallel institutional ecosystems (e.g., NATO vs. SCO, G7 vs. BRICS+). By situating U.S. foreign policy within this multiplex and often contradictory environment, the study offers an explanation of continuity and change across administrations but concentrates mainly on Trump 2 and provides a framework for assessing future trajectories of U.S. foreign policy in a world where strategic clarity and systemic hierarchy are increasingly elusive.