Democracy is under pressure in ways that would have seemed unthinkable a decade ago—and Halifax just became one of the clearest mirrors of that reality.
This year’s Halifax International Security Forum brought together around 300 leaders and experts from democratic countries—ministers, lawmakers, military officers, diplomats, business leaders, civil society, academics, and journalists—for the 16th time to take stock of how democracy is holding up worldwide. The mood was notably sober: many participants felt that democracies are struggling, a perception echoed by an IPSOS survey showing that, on average, 79 percent of people across 20 countries believe the world is becoming more dangerous and that their governments are not fully equipped to handle emerging threats such as disinformation.
But here’s where it gets controversial: the pace and scope of change under the current Trump administration have exceeded most expectations, even those informed by detailed planning exercises. The shift from Trump’s first term to “Trump 2.0” is seen as not just incremental but exponential, reshaping both domestic and international arenas with unusual speed. One of the most visible signs of this new posture at Halifax was the absence of senior U.S. military commanders, following a Pentagon directive that no Defence Department officials should attend events hosted by so-called “America Last” organizations accused of promoting globalism and hate—an instruction explicitly referencing President Donald Trump.
A fractured liberal order
Behind the shared language of “democratic values,” many attendees quietly acknowledged an unsettling truth: the liberal international order built around American leadership after the Second World War is splintering. The traditional pillars of that system—dependable U.S. support for alliances, relatively open trade, and a broad commitment to democracy—are all under strain, and the fallout includes weaker political cohesion among allies and cracks in intelligence-sharing relationships that once felt rock solid. Even European and British participants admitted privately that they are contending with their own rising populist movements, fuelled by inequality and concerns about border security, which are eroding public trust in democratic institutions.
Ukraine remains a powerful emblem of democratic resilience, standing firm against unprovoked Russian aggression. Yet, even there, anxiety was palpable, especially around the evolving Trump “peace plan,” which raised serious questions and seemed to create confusion—even among the eight U.S. Senators present at the Forum. Security, after all, cannot rely on goodwill or symbolism alone; it rests on logistics, intelligence flows, timely equipment procurement, and sustained political commitment. When the leading partner in that system appears ambivalent, the entire security architecture begins to show signs of stress.
The two-front challenge for democracies
Democracies are now being squeezed from two directions at once. On the outside, they face assertive, revisionist states—branded last year at the Forum as the “CRINKS”: China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea—who are increasingly coordinated, especially in backing Russia with both weapons and dual-use technologies, and with North Korea even deploying personnel on the ground. Unlike many Western countries, these regimes are “all in,” treating this strategic contest as an all-encompassing effort rather than a secondary concern.
On the inside, democracies are dealing with the erosion of confidence in alliances and in the reliability of U.S. leadership. The discussions in Halifax underscored how quickly domestic political pressures and shifts in public opinion can weaken what used to be a predictable backbone of American-led leadership. When Washington hesitates or changes course abruptly, a large gap opens—and that gap does not close itself.
What other democracies must do next
So where does this leave other democratic states, especially
