Trump says his authority is limited only by his “own morality,” downplaying international law
In a new interview, the U.S. president outlined a worldview driven by power over rules, questioned the binding force of international law, and signaled willingness to bypass courts and alliances in pursuit of U.S. interests.
In an interview published on 9 January by The New York Times, Donald Trump said his powers as commander in chief are constrained only by his “own morality,” arguing that international law and treaties do not constitute meaningful limits on U.S. action.
“I don’t need international law. I’m not going to hurt people,” Trump said, while making clear that he does not view international norms as binding constraints on presidential authority.
Although Trump formally acknowledged that international law exists, he suggested that its applicability to the United States is ultimately a matter of personal interpretation. “It depends on how you define international law,” he said, indicating that he alone would decide when and how such rules apply.
Power over rules
Trump openly described a worldview in which raw state power, rather than rules or multilateral agreements, determines outcomes in global politics. He said he deliberately cultivates a reputation as an unpredictable leader and is willing to use the threat—or rapid deployment—of military force to pressure other countries.
As examples, he cited recent U.S. actions toward Venezuela and threats that, he said, had alarmed Colombia’s president.
More to read:
Trump family screws U.S.
Trump family screws U.S.
customers over promised “Made in the USA” T1 phone
Trump also said the United States had withdrawn from dozens of international organizations, arguing that multilateral institutions restrain a superpower’s freedom of action. He spoke approvingly of a strike on Iran’s nuclear program, the overthrow of Venezuela’s government, and renewed U.S. claims over Greenland.
Greenland and NATO
On Greenland, Trump insisted that military presence or treaties are insufficient. “Ownership is very important,” he said, calling territorial possession “psychologically necessary for success” and arguing that it provides advantages that cannot be obtained by “just signing a document.”
Asked whether Greenland or the preservation of NATO mattered more, Trump suggested the two could come into conflict and implied that the alliance would be meaningless without the United States. He claimed credit for forcing NATO members to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP and asserted that Russia “is not concerned about any NATO country except the United States.”
Arms control and Russia
Trump expressed indifference toward the expiration of the last remaining nuclear arms control treaty with Russia. “If it expires, it expires. We’ll just make a better deal,” he said, adding that China must be included in any future agreement.
More to read:
Bannon is sure that Trump will hold on power beyond 2028
Bannon is sure that Trump will hold on power beyond 2028
He dismissed concerns that U.S. actions in Venezuela could set a dangerous precedent for China or Russia. According to Trump, Venezuela posed a “real threat,” while Taiwan represents “a different situation.” He said he was confident that Chinese leader Xi Jinping would not use force against Taiwan while Trump remains in power.
Europe, Ukraine, and domestic power
Trump said he had been “very loyal to Europe” and claimed he had “done a good job,” asserting that without him Russia “would now control all of Ukraine.”
On domestic policy, Trump said courts could limit his decisions only “under certain circumstances.” He suggested he could bypass judicial rulings, including by reclassifying tariffs, and again affirmed his willingness to invoke the Insurrection Act if necessary. That would allow him to deploy the military and National Guard inside the United States, though he said he had not yet “felt the need to do that.”
The interview offers one of Trump’s clearest statements to date of a presidency defined by personal authority, skepticism toward legal and institutional constraints, and a foreign policy rooted in force rather than rules.
