Since the time Donald Trump resumed the charge as the 45th US President, he seems to have been delivering a negative impact on international law, and the international legal system that now appears on the brink of unraveling. This is also a truism that Trump’s indoctrinated foreign policy narrative has created a clash between the hard power forces of unilateralism and the soft power norms of multilateralism or international law. Glaringly, Trump’s administration priorities are richly reflective of Trump’s advocacy of isolation–pursued through policies of disengagement, power politics, and divergence. And notably, wherever possible, Trump has chosen to disassociate his Government from global alliances by claiming that no meaningful rules could constrain or guide the hyperpower US. President Trump’s statements and tweets are the hallmarks of presidential lack of concern for international law altogether, and often for the American Constitution. Trump gives no importance to appeals solicited from Republican supporters and even his hand-picked advisors who gravely worry that the United States’ international reputation and the state policy stability are in jeopardy. According to Ronald Dworkin, a leading American jurist on international law, ”international law is existing at pre-interpretative stage of his theory of interpretation”. Undeniably, the core or the efficacy of international law intrinsically lies in its true interpretation but unfortunately, this core has been largely hampered by Trump’s newfound unilateralism since many of the actions taken by the President don’t endorse US respect for international law. Furthermore, Trump has exercised a broad authority unjustifiably to withdraw from the institutions of the postwar global order. Some of the US policy advisors advocate for US engagement with sharp elbows, hard-nosed realism, and pragmatic cost-benefit analysis. Yet significantly, the actions or moves taken by President Trump clearly deny the fundamentals tenants set by international law regarding its interpretation, applicability, and implementation. Trump’s decision of recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to the old city has been universally condemned, as it is contrary to a well-established rule of international law that states must not recognize the occupations of conquest. Though the US chooses to veto the move in the UNSC to block a resolution criticizing the presidential decision, the members (albeit US close allies), criticized it. And by no surprise, the UN General Assembly, the European Union, the Arab League, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) have all passed strongly worded resolutions affirming that they would not recognize any changes to the pre-1967 borders– including in and around Jerusalem. All in all, Trump’s policies revolve around his love for Israel. Here one might discern neither vision nor foresight, rather, a reflection on US’ chronic propensity as a part of the fabric of the US political and realist tradition to ignore international law As we must understand that under international law a treaty is an international agreement signed or duly concluded between states or other entities with international personality if the agreement is meant to have international legal effect. Clearly, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties stipulates set of international law standards for treaties, broadly defined. Virtually, the US President’s authority to enter into Sole Executive agreements, nevertheless, is thought not to be so overridingly broad. Yet so far, the US Chief Court has not settled the question of whether the President can unilaterally withdraw from treaties or congressional-executive agreements. However, whether any state can withdraw from, denounce or terminate a treaty is not merely a domestic matter as Trump has considered it; but it comes within the very domain of international law. But President Trump is unmoved by the clear logic that refusing to certify Iran’s compliance with the nuclear agreement-by misrepresenting the fact that Iran is, in fact, complying-signals to the world that the United States will, at any time and for any reason, decide that another country is not following an international agreement, with the implication that the US will no longer be bound by that agreement. Plainly put, Trump’s contempt for international agreements has also limited the impact of his withdrawals from the Paris climate accord, and the Iran nuclear deal, a multilateral agreement with six other countries and the European Union; only the United States has withdrawn. “The other parties to the deal-the Europeans, the Russians, and the Chinese-will not default on their political obligations just because Donald Trump wants to tear the deal up,” Harold Koh, a US State Department legal advisor in 2010 writes in his latest book ‘The Trump Administration and International Law’. Objectively, states perform function on different policies and laws. Some of these laws are for the internal functioning of the state while others are of the external dealings-connecting the dots in order to become an effective member of the international community. The three disciplines-international relations, foreign policy, and international law might be considered as different subjects, but they are organically interlinked to reshape geopolitics. All in all, Trump’s policies revolve around his love for Israel. Here one might discern neither vision nor foresight, rather, a reflection on US’ chronic propensity as a part of the fabric of the US political and realist tradition to ignore international law. It is a widely held principle of international law that ordinary changes in government could hardly affect treaty or international agreement obligations. Yet conversely, a series of actions– that Trump has so far taken-clearly manifest his indifference to the legal correctitude. Be it the matter of revoking Iran’s nuclear deal or recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital or be it the issue of Paris climate deal or US’ move of accepting Israel’s sovereignty over Golan, the overall impression cultivated from all these developments is that Trump’s legacy is sowing the seeds of American dissension with international law.Yet the worst degree of professional ineptitude, the Trump administration has been showing with regard to the ICJ rulings, the ICC’s findings and the UN’s resolutions are bad recipes for the future of international law. And most crucially, the resilience shown by the US Congress over Trump’s unwarranted moves seems very alarming, and might eventually lead to a dangerous recourse should Trump be re-emerged on US presidential horizon. The writer is an independent ‘IR’ researcher and international law analyst based in Pakistan