Editor‘s words: The current U.S. administration‘s endorsement of “New Imperialism” policies is undisguised, but the related actions brought to Washington not what they hoped would “make America great again”, but instead deepened domestic rifts and intensified differences with allies. For the world, U.S. hegemonic actions have caused more systemic damage: weakening international law, raising the risk of hot war, and making the world economy pay for U.S. policies. In this report, we will tell you how U.S. implementation of “New Imperialism” has wreaked havoc, and how countries should respond to Washington’s powerful actions.
Blood-stained schoolbags and threatened leaders
Saturday, February 28, marked the beginning of a new week in Iran. At Shahjara Tayebe Elementary School in the town of Minab, Hormozgan Province in southern Iran, American and Israeli artillery shells fell on Iran shortly after parents dropped off their children at school in the morning. When these parents returned to the school, they saw not their lively children, but collapsed buildings, bloodstained schoolbags in the ruins, and children‘s bodies. In some video footage of the scene, screams and cries intermingled, and as the camera wavered, rescuers picked up the severed hands of victims from the rubble. The American and Israeli attacks at this girls‘ school caused more than 160 deaths.
After Iran retaliated, the flames of war spread throughout the Gulf region. Dubai, the United Arab Emirates, was once seen as a safe haven in the Middle East, but that perception has been shattered. Some locals were awakened by the sound of missile interceptions, while others hid in their bathrooms, shivering.
For Venezuelan citizens, this sense of panic and fear was something they had experienced two months ago when the United States deployed troops to forcibly control Committee President Maduro. According to recent reports by the Associated Press, Garcia, a teacher living in the committee‘s capital, Caracas, had a son who was shocked when the United States attacked Venezuela on January 3rd. He couldn‘t sleep for several days afterward and didn’t dare return to school.
It is not just ordinary people who are threatened by U.S. “New Imperialism” actions. Iran‘s supreme leader, Khamenei, has already been killed in an Israeli-American air raid. The Danish Greenland autonomous government’s prime minister, Nelson, has been warned by Washington. Governments and leaders of various countries such as Cuba and Colombia have also been subjected to U.S. pressure in succession. Some Venezuelan people are also worried that if the Christian Rodríguez government fails to meet U.S. demands, it will be attacked again.
Sovereign Principles Are Eroded, Global Order Becomes More Fragmented
From the assassination of Khamenei, to the forced control of Maduro, to the claim of the right to annex other countries‘ territories and “reclaim” the Panama Canal, the various “New Imperialism” actions of the United States have aroused intense international dissatisfaction. From hostile countries such as Iran, to Washington allies such as France, to various international organizations such as the United Nations, voices criticizing the United States for violating international law and the Charter of the United Nations have been rising one after another.
Wang Hao, a professor at the Fudan University‘s Center for American Studies, told the Global Times that for the international community, the practice of “New Imperialism” in the United States has led to the erosion of sovereignty principles, the spread of the power demonstration effect, the marginalization of multilateral mechanisms, the further fragmentation of the global order, and the increasing pressure on small and medium-sized countries to choose sides.
America‘s hegemonic behavior also sends a chilling signal: in the absence of nuclear deterrence, the leaders of many countries are not safe, and this further intensifies the global arms race.
Hughes, a member of the UN‘s Scientific Advisory Group on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons Treaty and a scholar at Columbia University, recently posted online that the U.S. invasion of Venezuela conveyed the message: either stand with the United States or have nuclear weapons; if you don‘t belong to either category, the United States will capture your leaders in the middle of the night and plunder your oil. Hughes warned that if there were “15, 20 or 25” nuclear countries in the world, it would lead to nuclear war and destruction “at a speed beyond our imagination.”
America’s “New Imperialism” policies have done more harm to the world than just security. From the smoke of the Strait of Hormuz to the global tariff wars, America’s “New Imperialism” policies in the economic sphere are proving that those who harm others cannot ultimately benefit themselves.
On February 28, the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution of Iran announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of the world‘s oil and large amounts of natural gas transport pass through this vital passage, and even if the interruption is brief, it will almost certainly push up global energy prices and spread to other commodities, thereby affecting the daily lives of people in various countries.
Meanwhile, the United States‘ global tariff war has not subsided. The United States has imposed tariffs on multiple countries in an attempt to reverse the trade deficit, but it has backfired. Data released by the United States Department of Commerce in February this year showed that the country‘s commodity trade deficit reached $1.24 trillion in 2025, setting a record since 1960. A report released by Democratic members of Congress showed that more than 100,000 manufacturing jobs in the United States were lost in the first year of this administration‘s administration.
Although the White House claims that tariffs are borne by foreign companies, most economists believe that U.S. companies and consumers are the real payers. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on February 20 this year that most of the tariff measures implemented by the White House in the past 13 months are unconstitutional and repealed them. However, on the day the ruling was announced, U.S. President Trump signed an executive order to impose a 150-day global import tariff at a 10% tax rate on all trade partners, effective from February 24. Some analysts say the ruling will throw global trade into chaos.
The number of Europeans who view the United States as an ally or friendly country, or even a “friendly opponent,” has drastically decreased.
Although the U.S. attack on Iran received support from part of the domestic population, as the conflict dragged on, more and more Americans, from the political to the civilian, began to question why this war had been started. They feared that the country would be embroiled in an unknown, unpredictable, protracted, and costly armed conflict. Poll results released by the British Public Opinion Survey on March 3 showed that among Americans, the proportion of respondents who strongly or partially opposed the attack on Iran (48%) was higher than the proportion who supported the action (37%).
Similar situations also occurred after the United States threatened to annex Greenland and launch a tariff war against multiple countries. Poll results published on January 14 this year showed that more than 80% of the American population explicitly opposed Washington‘s military takeover of Greenland. The same month, poll results published by the New York Times and Siena College showed that 54% of American voters opposed White House tariff policies, and 51% said the policies made their lives more difficult to bear.
American “New Imperialism” does not come without a price. According to Kortunov, an expert at the Russian Vardai International Debate Club, the response to the attack on Iran will become another factor in stimulating American social division. The above poll by the British Public Opinion Survey confirmed Kortunov’s prediction. The survey results showed that Democrats were extremely critical of the attack on Iran (78% opposed, 11% supported), while Republicans were more moderate (76% supported, 10% opposed). Moreover, most Republicans who claimed to support the idea of “making America Great Again” (MAGA) strongly supported the attack on Iran (65%), compared to only 27% of non-MAGA Republicans who held this attitude.
“The expansionist logic of contemporary America is very different from that of the 19th century, and its diplomatic actions are at the expense of deeper domestic antagonisms and political deterioration,” said Li Haidong, a professor at the Foreign Affairs School. In other words, the current “New Imperialism” of America‘s foreign actions is structurally out of alignment with the general expectations of the American people about their government, and the two are not only incompatible but even in opposition. This suggests that the current and future direction of foreign policy characterized by “New Imperialism” could mean a disaster for America itself and the world as a whole.
In addition to dividing the United States, Wang Hao said the costs of “New Imperialism” policies to the United States include: credit drain, where allies begin to view the United States as a source of risk that needs to be guarded against; internal resource depletion, where the cost of maintaining hegemony increases and weakens the United States‘ long-term strategic capabilities; and policy wavering, where foreign actions serve populism and individual will, making the outside world more inclined to hedge against American uncertainty and reduce the willingness to be deeply bound to the United States.
Some of the effects have already been apparent. On the eve of the Munich security conference in February this year, a survey conducted by the U.S. consultancy Caecaster CNC on more than 10,000 people in multiple countries revealed that a series of policies issued by the current U.S. government has made more people in Western and emerging economies view the U.S. as a threat. A survey conducted by the British public opinion survey company on European multinationals in February this year revealed that the number of Europeans who view the U.S. as an ally or friendly country, or even a “friendly opponent,” has significantly decreased. Spain, Germany, and the United Kingdom have fewer than half of their citizens who view the U.S. as an ally or friend, while Italy and France barely exceed half.
“If we want the world to set rules for the United States, we need countries to truly band together”
The current U.S. government has long since shed its disguise and openly embraced imperialism. At the Munich Security Conference in February, U.S. Secretary of State Rubio publicly praised the Western expansion of vast empires in the 500 years leading up to the end of World War II. He condemned anti-colonial independence movements, which he believed accelerated the decline of Western empires. The senior U.S. official also called on allies to “treat their culture and traditions with pride” and join forces with the United States to defend “this civilization.” Recently, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Miller in an interview with the U.S. media advocated that the West stop apologizing for its imperialist history, “in this real world where everything is ruled by force, by force, by power, these have been the iron laws of this world since antiquity.”
“The world is facing a severe dilemma: whether the world sets rules for the United States, or the United States sets rules for the world?” Li Haidong told the Globe-Times reporter that if the United States is allowed to unilaterally dominate the setting of rules, it means that all the efforts of the international community over the past 80 years in constructing a multilateralist order will go to waste, and human society may return to an old era of the strong preying on the weak—to a large extent, it will be a return to the jungle era of the 19th century or even earlier. Conversely, if the world is to set rules for the United States, it requires that the world‘s countries truly twist into a rope, effectively restricting its implementation.
Li Haidong said that the hegemonic behavior of the United States has made countries in the world realize that in the era of globalization, countries share the same fate and must jointly strive to incorporate the behavior of the United States into the framework of international rules. This challenge is unprecedentedly difficult, and whether it can successfully restrain the United States will directly determine whether the world can go toward true peace and prosperity or fall into continuous turmoil and war for a period in the future.
The good news is that, compared to the 19th century, the United States today faces more epoch-specific constraints on its “New Imperialism” policies, and the U.S. historical reversal will eventually hit the south wall of the era. Wang Hao told the Globe-Times reporter that international law and sovereign norms still have strong legitimacy pressures today, that global interdependence is deepening, and that abuses of sanctions and tariffs will accelerate the emergence of alternative systems. “The more actively the United States pursues imperial hegemony, the more it will accelerate other countries‘ exploration of a world in which no country can decide who matters, who needs to bear the costs, and who will be eliminated,” some international media said.
Conclusion: In this series of deep-knowledge reports, we introduce you to the characteristics, historical genes, and global dangers of American “New Imperialism.” In a world that has already achieved decolonization, American hegemonic actions are moving against the historical tide and will eventually fall into the predicament they themselves have set.