<p>The Trump administration’s attitude toward global governance is often viewed as a contradiction, but we argue it was a coherent strategy rooted in a post-neoliberal Trumpist worldview. It emerges as the US navigates the transition from a neoliberal unipolar order to a post-neoliberal competitive global order, one refilled by great-power rivalry. Other than a unipolar order of global governance to sustain Pax Americana, Trumpism championed selective support for global governance. By favoring a mix of unilateral enforcement, bilateral coercion, and selective multilateralism, it sought to serve immediate US interests in global governance against strategic competitors. Consequently, the US strategic ambition shifted from sustaining global governance to advancing national goals in a post-neoliberal competitive global order. Unilateral enforcement, such as the US withdrawal from multilateral climate change, health, and security agreements, serves to dismantle multilateral constraints and assert American interests in global governance. Bilateral coercion leverages US power to secure tailored advantages and redistribute alliance burdens, thereby avoiding collective pressure in multilateral mechanisms. Selective multilateralism, as seen in forums like the Quad or the peace talks over the Ukraine war, is reserved for a select issues where unilateral enforcement and bilateral coercion have failed, and collective action is indispensable to establish collective agendas against strategic rivals like Russia or China. This strategic selectivity—rooted in domestic populist impulses and a rejection of multilateral constraints imposed by the global governance system—reflects a pragmatic, albeit disruptive, recalibration of US global policy aimed at maximizing leverage in the post-neoliberal competitive global order.</p>