The article examines the growing concern over President Donald Trump's contempt for not only national laws but also international legal frameworks, prominently highlighted by incidents such as the deportation of immigrants without judicial oversight and the refusal to disburse funds approved by Congress. It raises questions about Trump's commitment to international law and organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the World Trade Organization, particularly in light of the editorial by Max Boot in The Washington Post, which cites the U.S.'s historical disregard for international law during key military interventions.

In the editorial, Boot argues that Trump's flippant remarks and actions indicate a clear intent to undermine the principles that govern international relations, encapsulated in his assertion to The New York Times that he does not feel bound by international law. The historical context presented reveals a pattern of U.S. actions, such as the invasion of Cambodia in 1970 and Iraq in 2003, showcasing a long-standing trend of the United States sidestepping international legal obligations when it deems them inconvenient.

The implications of Trump's presidency signal a potential challenge to the existing international legal order, fostering concerns among allies and global institutions regarding the U.S.'s role in upholding the rule of law on an international scale. The article poses critical questions on the future of international law compliance and the responsibilities of major powers, as it becomes increasingly evident that President Trump's administration may not place precedence on legal frameworks, thereby jeopardizing the overarching institutions designed to maintain global order and stability.