Since the Great Depression, economists have quipped, “When America sneezes, the world catches a cold”. But that familiar saying may soon need an update. As we’ve seen over the last ten months, the world isn’t just catching a cold from Washington – it’s getting a bloody nose.

Fresh from successfully threatening UN nations to ditch a new framework aimed at cutting maritime emissions last week, the Trump administration jointly penned a strongly worded letter with Qatar on Wednesday calling on Brussels to drop the EU’s incoming corporate sustainability rules.

The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) requires companies to identify, prevent, mitigate, and remedy human rights and environmental impacts across their global value chains. But the US-Qatari letter argues that the CSDDD “will cause considerable harm” to Europe by limiting “the availability of reliable, affordable energy for EU consumers”.

Major energy suppliers to Europe, the US and Qatar provided roughly 45% and 12%, respectively, of the EU’s liquefied natural gas imports, and about 16% and 4% of its overall gas supply in 2024. With the bloc keen to reduce its reliance on Russian fuel, the letter’s threat was far from veiled.

The EU is already split over the CSDDD. Germany and France are wary of it hurting European businesses’ competitiveness, while Spain argues that Europe must lead the world on environmental sustainability and human rights, especially given the Trump administration’s “America First” mantra. 

Though Brussels is considering amendments, such as reducing the number of companies covered by the directive and delaying its implementation, the US and Qatar want a full repeal or substantial revision of key provisions. 

But improved due diligence of global supply chains is far from the only issue commanding this White House’s attention on the world stage.

In June, the administration used the International Labour Organization (ILO) conference in Geneva to push back against mounting calls for stricter global regulation of platform work and artificial intelligence.

Defending the business models of major tech platforms such as Uber, DoorDash, and Amazon, Deputy US Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling positioned the US as both the birthplace and protector of the gig economy.

“The United States will not tolerate an unfair or biased standard that puts American workers last,” Sonderling told the ILO as an international call to reclassify gig workers as employees, rather than independent contractors, refuses to be silenced.

“International standards must promote fairness without eliminating choice,” Sonderling argued. “Instead of well-intentioned but shortsighted bureaucracy, our workers deserve flexibility, access, and parity in the global market.”

On moves to regulate AI, the deputy secretary commented: “AI regulations are often too focused on control, instead of innovation and prosperity. We end up clipping the wings of our entrepreneurs instead of emboldening them for the good of our workers.”

The US has never been shy about advancing its interests on the world stage, often using soft power to quietly pressure friend and foe alike into alignment with Washington’s agenda. But this second Trump presidency has embraced an approach that, while far more transparent, is also markedly more confrontational. 

Where past administrations might have relied on quiet negotiation or coalition-building, Trump’s team has embraced a strategy of direct leverage, linking trade, defence, and energy policy to wider geopolitical goals. The result is a foreign policy defined less by subtle diplomacy and more by transactional assertiveness and overt threat.

These latest interventions underscore Washington’s willingness to throw its weight around in defence of the modern American labour market – even though domestic debates on these same issues are far from settled – but this will likely widen the transatlantic divide over the future of work.

For many multinational businesses, the Trump administration’s assertion that regulation should not come at the cost of opportunity will be broadly welcomed. But on the other hand, new regulations can drive higher standards that reward responsible and forward-thinking companies. 

In the realms of human rights and environmental protection, many employers want to operate on a level playing field and know what specific compliance is required of them to be a good employer and global citizen. 

Clearly we can expect more interventions in the future. But for those watching the White House butt heads with the international community, the question is whether economic “opportunity” comes at too high a human cost.