Is the Global Order Fragmenting? Lula, Trump, and the Growing Battle Over Who Governs the World
January 24, 2026
As global institutions face mounting pressure, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has emerged as one of the most outspoken defenders of the post-war international system. His sharp criticism of US President Donald Trump this week is more than a diplomatic dispute—it reflects a widening struggle over who defines global governance in an increasingly polarized world.
Speaking in southern Brazil, Lula accused Trump of attempting to sideline the United Nations in favor of a US-controlled alternative. The comments came amid Washington’s launch of a new initiative known as the “Board of Peace,” a body that critics say risks undermining multilateral cooperation rather than strengthening it.
A Deeper Ideological Divide
At the core of Lula’s criticism is a clash of political philosophies. For Brazil and many emerging economies, the United Nations remains a crucial platform where power is balanced through international law and shared decision-making. Trump’s foreign policy, however, prioritizes unilateral action, transactional alliances, and direct pressure through economic and military tools.
Lula’s warning that the UN Charter is being weakened resonates far beyond Latin America. It reflects concerns that global diplomacy is drifting away from institutional frameworks toward personality-driven leadership and informal power blocs.
The “Board of Peace” and Questions of Legitimacy
Announced during the World Economic Forum in Davos, the Board of Peace was initially described by US officials as a mechanism for post-conflict reconstruction. However, its official charter outlines a broader and less defined mission, raising questions about its long-term objectives.
The inclusion of controversial political figures has further fueled skepticism. Critics argue that appointing leaders facing international legal scrutiny undermines the credibility of any body claiming to promote peace and stability.
Unlike the United Nations, which is grounded in universal membership and international treaties, the Board of Peace reportedly requires substantial financial contributions from participating countries. Observers warn that this model risks turning global governance into an exclusive club driven by wealth rather than consensus.
Financial Pressure on Multilateral Institutions
The controversy unfolds at a time when the United Nations is struggling with serious funding constraints. Humanitarian agencies and human rights programs have been particularly affected as major donor states redirect resources toward military spending and domestic priorities.
The United States, traditionally one of the UN’s largest contributors, has delayed payments and withdrawn from several UN-affiliated bodies. For countries like Brazil, this trend signals a deliberate weakening of multilateral institutions rather than a push for meaningful reform.
China, the Global South, and Strategic Calculations
Lula’s recent diplomatic engagement with China highlights a broader alignment among Global South nations. While differences remain, many emerging powers agree that reforming the United Nations is preferable to replacing it with parallel structures dominated by a single country.
For Brazil, defending the UN is not an ideological gesture but a strategic necessity. In a fragmented system, smaller and mid-sized powers risk losing influence as decision-making shifts toward exclusive forums.
What Lies Ahead for Global Governance?
The debate sparked by Lula’s remarks raises critical questions about the future of international cooperation. Can global institutions remain effective without the full commitment of major powers? Will new, selective bodies replace universal organizations like the UN?
Supporters of Trump’s approach argue that streamlined institutions allow for faster decisions. Critics counter that efficiency without legitimacy risks instability and a return to power politics reminiscent of the pre-UN era.
Lula’s warning should be seen less as rhetorical opposition and more as a cautionary message. At a time of global crises—from armed conflicts to climate emergencies—weakening shared institutions may offer short-term political gains while creating long-term global risks.
As debates over reform versus replacement intensify, the future of the international order may depend on whether cooperation can adapt without abandoning the principles that have governed global relations for decades.
Hashtags: #GlobalPolitics #UnitedNations #USForeignPolicy #Multilateralism #Geopolitics