Key Points
- President Trump asserts international law does not restrict US actions; only his personal morality does
- Bold foreign and domestic policies intensify discussions within the US and internationally
- Domestic unrest escalates with consecutive officer-involved shootings
- Critics question Trump’s support for Iranian protesters amid protests at home
ISLAMABAD: US President Donald Trump stated that he does not “need international law” to guide US actions worldwide. The remarks were made during a broad interview with The New York Times conducted in the Oval Office.
Trump said, “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.” He added, “It depends on what your definition of international law is.”
Since the start of his second term, Trump has pursued assertive policies abroad and at home. Internationally, he has imposed tariffs to pressurise other countries, seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and captured a Russia-flagged oil tanker in international waters.
Domestically, he has tightened immigration enforcement, amid two officer-involved shootings within two days—including a fatal incident in Minneapolis and a non-fatal shooting in Portland, Oregon.
Trump claims his approach helps prevent deadly conflicts overseas. He has also pledged support for Iranian protesters, a stance critics say appears contradictory amid protests and civil unrest within the US.
International media described his remarks as concerning. The Guardian termed them a “worrying retreat from global norms.” European leaders, including France and Germany, expressed concern over weakened alliances and global stability. Denmark warned that Trump’s remarks about Greenland highlight tensions within NATO and European collaboration.
US lawmakers and commentators responded strongly. Some argued that no leader should claim personal morality as the sole limit on power, warning that it undermines constitutional checks. Supporters defended Trump, stating he prioritises American interests and that international agreements often restrict US actions.
Analysts say the debate highlights deep divisions over the US’s global role and the meaning of law and morality in foreign policy.
