Half a year of Trump II: the exercise of power without restraint
Next Sunday marks six months into Donald Trump's second presidency, an ideal opportunity to take stock of his administration. Unsurprisingly, given his profile and reputation, he is already characterized by a huge amount of controversy.
In these 180 days, Trump has deployed a series of initiatives at the domestic and international levels with one common denominator: a permanent, stinging, unilateral, and personal demonstration (and use) of the power emanating from his office, the likes of which have not been seen in the United States since the era of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945), during the Great Depression and World War II. These two critical events, decisive in defining the format adopted by the entire international system to this day, explain the context of the leadership exercised by FDR, the intellectual and factual author of the New Deal . This is a model in which the State assumed a pivotal role in promoting economic and social development, distributing income, and combating unemployment and poverty through a diverse set of public policy programs with a clearly interventionist bent. He belongs to the GOP (although until the beginning of the century he had a clear affinity for the Democrats), but Trump recovers and deepens that state-centric spirit to protect "strategic" sectors, abandoning the neoliberal consensus that prevailed for almost half a century and sustained by governments of both parties.
Starting from a controversial but highly functional diagnosis to justify his initiatives and impose his imprint without hesitation (that his country was in a terminal crisis, weakened by the disadvantages of globalization and by an incoherent and corrupt leadership), the author of The Art of the Deal aims to fundamentally change some of the mechanisms that regulate both the international political economy and that of his country. For better or worse, he achieved goals that few thought possible and achieved a series of material and symbolic victories that will allow him to advance steadily at least until the midterm elections at the end of next year , when, consequently, he will become a "lame duck" (as the sudden loss of power experienced by those who cannot be re-elected is called).
On the international stage, Trump is seeking to assert his country's role as a powerful power to contain Chinese expansion and influence. He is struggling . He clashed with Putin's intransigence in negotiating a ceasefire in Ukraine and moving toward a more lasting agreement, although, partly thanks to this, he persuaded NATO members to increase their funding. Mark Rutte, the organization's Secretary General, is an enthusiastic flatterer of the American president. Likewise, cooperation with Israel was key to dismantling Iran's nuclear program. Without Congressional participation and amid controversy regarding its true impact, Trump made a risky and courageous decision, sending a clear message regarding his commitment to strategic objectives, which could have far-reaching consequences in the medium and long term and alter the balance of power beyond the Middle East. He emphasized, however, that he was not seeking regime change in that country. The most controversial aspect: the imposition of tariffs. Amidst countless unfulfilled threats and postponed deadlines, a couple of agreements were reached with long-standing allies (the United Kingdom) and more recent ones (Vietnam). It was very presumptuous to assume that multiple and complex negotiations would come to fruition in such a short time. Trump's frequent unilateral announcements in the midst of these processes confuse his counterparts and increase the sense of chaos and volatility. It's the environment in which he seems most comfortable.
More questionable is his interference in the internal affairs of other countries , as occurred with Panama's sovereignty over its canal, its claim to control Greenland (which belongs to Denmark), or his defense of Jair Bolsonaro, who is about to be convicted by the Brazilian courts for an attempted coup d'état (in this case, he was defending himself, given the unfortunate episode of January 6, 2021, when a mob encouraged by his government attempted to invade the Capitol). It is true that Lula is betting on strengthening the BRICS, and this is viewed with suspicion in Washington. Furthermore, the investigation initiated by the Department of Commerce into unfair practices implemented by Brazil seems out of time, given the protectionist policies pursued by the Trump administration.
Domestically, Trump displayed an imperial, abrasive, and omnipresent leadership. With a cabinet composed of loyal figures with little autonomy, he does what he pleases, leaving no one able to moderate his opinions and priorities. Congress approved his budget bill, which would increase the fiscal deficit and debt, precipitating his divorce from Elon Musk, one of his most important advisors since the election campaign, who had secured the support of executives and shareholders of major technology companies. With cuts to social and public health programs, this law allowed him to impose his authority on legislators in both chambers, confirming a near-absolute leadership in his party, something few of his colleagues had enjoyed.
His economic policy is both surprising and alarming: he applies principles and instruments that have failed every time they've been put into practice. His stance in favor of import substitution is already generating inflationary pressures. Even worse were his constant attacks on the Federal Reserve for its interest rate policy. The climax? Criticizing the appointment of Jerome Powell, whom he himself appointed during his previous term. The weakening of the dollar could jeopardize his hegemony in international trade, which, far from "making the United States great," would condemn it to a secondary position.
The mass deportations of illegal immigrants, the attack on major universities, including cutting-edge research programs in science and technology, the imposition of his authority over the autonomy of states (especially some governed by Democrats with presidential aspirations), and the downsizing of government (he began eliminating thousands of jobs from the Ministry of Education, which is on the way out, and practically eliminated key agencies, such as USAID) are some of the initiatives most criticized by the opposition and independent observers. Some assert that the democratic system is in danger. Critical voices and antibodies against potential risks of authoritarian slides are always welcome, even if there may be exaggerated reactions.
In particular, the Democratic Party lacks the moral authority to present itself as a defender of institutions and the rule of law. Disregarding Trump's ongoing claims of fraud in the 2020 election, the Democratic establishment interfered in the primaries of 2016 (imposing Hillary Clinton and ousting Bernie Sanders), 2020 (promoting Joe Biden to the detriment of the Vermont senator), and 2024 (removing Biden, who then imposed his vice president, Kamala Harris). And there is mounting evidence that Biden's aides were aware of his increasing cognitive decline, that they failed to act in accordance with the requirements of the 25th Amendment (which requires a Supreme Court complaint in the event of a president's inability to serve due to health reasons), and that they may have benefited from this power vacuum.
As is often the case in our country, it is difficult to build a democratic system with real-life actors who ignore democratic values and culture.
lanacion
