Despite Trump’s policies having delivered palpable, often headline-grabbing fleeting victories — from economic gains to unconventional diplomatic gestures — they also have been instilling deeper geopolitical instabilities, strategic isolation, and the prospective erosion of America’s long-term global leadership.
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Despite Trump’s policies having delivered palpable, often headline-grabbing fleeting victories — from economic gains to unconventional diplomatic gestures — they also have been instilling deeper geopolitical instabilities, strategic isolation, and the prospective erosion of America’s long-term global leadership.
Since taking over as the 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump has adopted a transactional approach towards traditional alliances and resolving the most complex issues.
The policies Trump is implementing are tantamount to gambling with the world economy and financial stability. The upheavals they caused in less than 100 days from the beginning of his second term augur ill for the rest of his tenure if continued.
The world of today is completely different from what it was in Trump’s first term, and all his adversaries and disillusioned allies are prepared and equipped this time to stand up to his whims.
His reckless and hostile attitudes towards the world and the interests of his country will waste the American wealth and will never “make America great again.”
“The policies Trump is implementing are tantamount to gambling with the world economy and financial stability. The upheavals they caused in less than 100 days from the beginning of his second term augur ill for the rest of his tenure if continued.”
Polls reveal that he scored the lowest 100-day job approval rating of any president in the past 80 years. Rights activists, opposition leaders and public opponents continue to push back on many of his policies.
According to the poll, more than 55% of the Americans disapprove of his job performance while 72% are discontent with his failure to fulfil his economic promise. The respondents fear Trump’s actions likely will cause a recession in the short term.
Analysts say that Trump’s actions are reminiscent of a Cold War-style global structure in which big powers carve up geographic spheres of influence.
But his ultimate purpose is to reshape the US policies vis-à-vis allies, whether in Europe, the Middle East, or the Western Hemisphere. This transformation is igniting fears of the ensuing chaos and reviving old grudges against Europe.
His “my way or the highway” economic policies have shocked the world markets. They are likely to cause catastrophic impact on international financial institutions and many nations. Moreover, his threats to pull out from the international financial and trade organizations may backfire against the US dominance and influence.
Rarely has the US history witnessed a president like Trump other than Andrew Jackson.
Both he and Trump had mega egos, received staunch support from their populist bases while remaining strongly hated by many. Both humiliated their own party’s adversaries. Both of them survived assassination attempts, had discriminatory action taken against a minority group: a large native tribe in case of Jackson, and all immigrants in case of Trump.
“His reckless and hostile attitudes towards the world and the interests of his country will waste the American wealth and will never ‘make America great again.’”
Both claimed the election was rigged, scapegoated people of color, abused presidential authority, imposed unwarranted tariffs, dismantled federal agencies, and fomented grudges. Both adopted a spoils system that rewards their cronies and loyal supporters with high-paying jobs regardless of their incompetence.
The election of Donald Trump was a revolt against the Republicans’ orthodox approach to a plethora of issues. Equally, it was a resentment from the tepid and “sleepy” performance of the democrats.
Trump boldly challenged the core tenets of Republican ideology and dared to attack long-standing policies, from free trade to protectionism, immigration, and sacred welfare programs.
This audacious and sometimes brazen campaign won over the Republican voter base. It also impressed the swinging voters who have traditional democrat-leanings despite Trump’s implicit and explicit racism. They also helped elect him because he successfully cast himself as a change agent.
His purely materialistic vision for the greatness of America radically contradicts with his Republican predecessors. According to the New York Times, Abraham Lincoln suggested the United States was “the last best hope of Earth.” Ronald Reagan celebrated it as a “shining city on a hill.” George W. Bush argued that the nation was “the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.”
But for Trump, America is the all-powerful player in a series of high-stakes transactions.
The most flagrant contrast with his Republican predecessors lies in his approach to American leadership in the world.
The Republican leaders spoke of global alliances in terms of good and evil, but Trump has allied with the Devil, claiming that he is putting America’s interests first.
The Republican presidents advocated free trade while Trump ignited trade wars. They used to give generously abroad to fend off problems at home. They used to cement alliances that serve American interests, but Trump has embarked on gutting foreign aid.
According to former US ambassador to NATO and China, R. Nicholas Burns, Trump is breaking away with what every American president adhered to, namely democratic principles and values, rule of law, and safeguarding the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each country.
American experts are worried of Trump taking US’s superpower status for granted, warning that they are actually playing with fire and gambling with an 80-year reputation.
Trump has always been prowling around the boundaries of dictatorship and autocratic rules despite being impeached twice. He was also embroiled in scandals and even implicated in the riots and attacks on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Trump’s actions and their ensuing results belie his exaggerated promises. The Washington Post revealed that he lied or made misleading statements over 18,000 times. And in the report “Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election,” which became known as the Mueller report, the special prosecutor found no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. However, he did find 272 contacts between Trump aides and Russian agents.
When he lectured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House, he said “You are not in a position of strength right now.” His language resembled more that of a gambler than a leader of a super power nation.
He joined China to reject a United Nations resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He also falsely suggested that Ukraine had started the war, though polls showed that the majority of Americans believe the opposite.
US right-wing voices contend that the Middle East is not worth the sacrifices, investments and the cost US is paying in the region. They emphasize that the problems of the region do not affect the Americans, and the US forces cannot fix them, and accordingly their presence there is futile.
They further contend that “policymakers have relied on murky theories about energy economics, the regional balance of power, and the threat of terrorism to exaggerate the region’s importance to US national security.”
They added that none of these theories justify current US policy in the region. And according to them, the ideas justifying a permanent troop presence there have been wrong for decades. They argue since Al-Qaeda’s was dispersed in 2001 and 2002, the US has become a net exporter of petroleum, and Israel has developed short range missile defense system Iron Dome.
The right-wing’s estimated cost of US expenditure for maintaining peace in Middle East falls between 60 and 70 billion dollars a year, besides the trillions it spends on wars there. They also argue that the excuses for the US forces deployment there are lame and do not guarantee that presence. These excuses include preventing major terrorist attacks, thwarting a market-making oil hegemony, curbing nuclear proliferation, and ensuring no regional actor destroys Israel.
They urge immediate pullout of about 60,000 US troops in the region after securing agreements that give them access to naval ports.
The offerings initiated by both Saudi Arabia and UAE have spared them the hefty tariffs Trump slapped on his allies and non-allies.
These tariffs might not exceed the base 10% set by Trump, thanks to about a one trillion dollars of investments announced by Riyadh and around $1.4 trillion promised by Abu Dhabi. The itemized fields of these investments have not been fully disclosed.
However, the oil-producing Gulf states will not remain immune to the indirect negative impacts of Trump’s tariffs. There could be a potential reduction in the oil demand because of recession or slowing global market growth.
The tariffs will also negatively affect the economies of both Jordan and Egypt. The region’s importance for Trump will be measured by how much it will benefit the US interests more than by how far it will serve the world peace and stability. The importance of other players in the Gulf area, namely Oman and Qatar, is weighed by their role in hosting and soothing negotiations and communications in the conflict with Iran and the war in Gaza, respectively.
But it will be unlikely for the Trump administration to succeed in hammering out any agreement on Gaza by giving the Israelis a free hand to finish the job — either by entrenching the sector’s quagmire or carrying on with the spree of bloodshed.
Trump does not believe in the viability of a two-state solution and accordingly will not pursue any normalization efforts. As he understands Saudi Arabia is hedging normalization efforts on the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Trump’s take-off point in the Middle East was his bombshell idea of turning the blood-soaked Gaza Strip into a “Riviera” by purging the entire Palestinian population. A matter that riled the traditional allies in the region, namely Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf Arab states.
Israel, as witnessed from the reaction of its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was surprised by this “out of the box” idea.
However, Arab leaders snubbed the idea. But it was not completely unbeneficial. At least, it motivated the leading Arab countries to huddle together and come up with an alternative. They insisted that Gaza can be built again after Israeli withdrawal and the Palestinian Authority’s takeover, without having to evacuate its population.
The massive resistance Trump’s proposal faced caused the Republican president to disregard the idea of mandatory expulsion of Palestinians. Later, during an interview he clarified that he would not “force” this solution, but rather “sit back and recommend it.”
And it seems that he now recognizes how extremely complicated the Middle East conflict is and why it remained unsolvable for decades. He understands 12 presidents before him tried, albeit partially, in more favorable environments than today to sort out this conundrum, but to no avail.
And this might be why he is resorting to some sort of pacification — either to maintain the status quo until his term or to get the minimum gain as a token to brag about.
And he apparently backed down on his warnings to Egypt and Jordan, two of the staunchest US allies in the region.
His “Riviera” proposal accompanied threats of cutting off the US economic and military aid to the two states unless they accept to receive some of the “evacuated Palestinians.” But the collective rebuff his threats met from the Arab countries, who expressed solidarity with Cairo and Amman, have awakened him up to the reality of the region and of the conflict.
The weird and hastily conceived idea of the “Riviera” in Gaza was also viewed with skepticism by the hawks in Israel and Washington.
Frustrated, Trump seems to have given up and let the war in Gaza flare up again, thus failing to fulfil one of his electoral promises, namely, “ending the war in Gaza from day one.”
Trump’s plan was certainly a non-starter. It falls in line with the same strategy he adopts in all his transactional tactics, namely the “shock therapy,” where he ups the ante of escalating the conflict. But this is typical of Trump who throws the bait and leaves the catch for the seekers to pick up. But seldom have his baits worked or attracted the herd.
“Trump’s self-centered policies or what he has shrouded in ‘America First’ motto has put the US and Europe on a collision course, affecting and transforming transatlantic relations.”
His deal dubbed “the deal of the century” pitched in his first term as “Peace to Prosperity” exchange found no buyers, whether Arab or Israelis. Likewise, his “Abraham Accords” signed only by a few Arab nations (United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Bahrain, and Sudan) had its light briefly flickered before dying.
The waning pressures on Egypt and Jordan indicate that the wisemen in Trump’s administration alerted him to the realities of international balances and the importance of these two countries in particular and the Middle East in general. Perhaps they highlighted what they mean to strategic stability and world trade security. Besides, losing such important allies would pose risks to Israel and whet the appetite of both Russia and China to step in and cajole the two countries.
Trump’s withdrawal from the world conflict zones is still subject to scrutiny as observers and experts gauge the pros and cons of this isolationist attitude. Or it may reflect his lack of complete understanding of the history of the region, the complexities of intra-Palestinian relationships, the potential implications for US allies and the emotional attachment to the land.
As for the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, who have been in the traditional sphere of Western influence for decades, they are still keen to remain under the US security umbrella. They have pegged their currencies to the US dollar, and their militaries are important clients to the Pentagon with major transactions in addition to training and consultancies.
Recent years have added cause for Gulf states to pursue diversification strategies and shyly try a “soft” decoupling to avoid the risks of over-reliance on the US. For example, the U.S. shale oil boom and the meteoric growth of the Chinese economy shifted demand for hydrocarbons away from the US and towards Asia. Today, China has surpassed the US as the most important trade partner of the Gulf.
However, the Gulf bloc started an economic incremental breakaway from the US grip. They locked some oil contracts with Beijing in the Chinese currency instead of the dollar. In 2023, Saudi Arabia joined the BRICS economic bloc, to which Trump threatened in case they replaced the dollar as a reserve currency. The UAE followed suit and signed up to the bloc in 2024.
The GCC have also embarked on diversifying their portfolios away from US assets and bonds to global investments in strategic mineral resources, food security, and in countries of regional importance like Egypt and Türkiye. The GCC states are also tempting Russian, Indian and Chinese investors as alternative to Western expatriates.
Iran has also ceased to be the common enemy for the US and the GCC countries.
The Saudi Minister of Defense recently travelled to Tehran, in the first visit by a Saudi high-ranking official since 2016, marking a thaw in the frozen relations since decades. The visit came few days before the US-Iranian talks started to thrash out a new nuclear agreement amidst an explicit reluctance from Riyadh, UAE, and Qatar to allow Israel passage through their airspace for any potential strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities.
And in October, Saudi Arabia and Iran conducted their first ever joint naval exercise in the Gulf of Oman, followed by a visit in November by the chief of staff of Saudi Arabia’s armed forces to Tehran where he met with his Iranian counterpart.
The dynamics in this region indicated that all US allies were against any attack on Iran before the war between Israel and Iran broke out.
Project 2025, which acts as the secret bible of Trump administration’s agenda, calls for US withdrawal from the World Bank and the IMF.
The US holds 16% of the World Bank’s shares as well as more than 16% of the IMF votes.
A large number of emerging market countries rely heavily on both institutions to help buoy their economies, pay their employees, provide cash during crises, assure investors, implement developmental programs, and modernize their infrastructure. The rich countries’ funding maintains global financial stability, especially in the developing partner and allied states.
One month after its inception, the Trump administration called for a six-month State Department review of “all intergovernmental organizations” in which the US is a member, aiming to withdraw from any that are “contrary to the interests of the United States.”
A State Department spokesperson said Trump last month signed an executive order directing Secretary of State Marco Rubio to review within 180 days all international organizations the US is a member of “to determine if they are contrary to US interests.”
That review includes primarily the IMF, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
During Trump’s first term in 2019, a US move to block new judge appointments to WTO’s top appeals court has already crippled the organization. WTO’s key dispute settlement remains partially functional till date. Washington had accused the WTO Appellate Body of judicial overreach in trade disputes.
The Geneva-based trade watchdog had an annual budget of $233 million. The US was due to contribute about 11% of that based on a fees system that is proportionate to its share of global trade, according to public WTO documents.
“Funding for the WTO, along with other international organizations, is currently under review,” the spokesperson said. The US has not set a date to inform the WTO of its decision and whether it will resume the funding or will withdraw.
The move has impaired the functioning of many of the 150 members of the organization. It portends chaos in the global trade milieu where weight and power are likely to overshadow consensus and rules, thus shattering and destabilizing the agreed international trade system.
Trump’s aggressive tariff rollouts have “significantly” increased global financial stability risks, according to the International Monetary Fund’s latest report. The report published on April 22 forecast a 0.5% decline in world economic growth and one percentage point decrease in the US economic outlook for 2025 compared to 2024.
The IMF warned “ratcheting up a trade war and heightened trade policy uncertainty may further hinder both short-term and long-term growth prospects.” It added that scaling back international cooperation could jeopardize progress toward a more resilient global economy.
The World Bank is indeed America’s most powerful soft arm and flag for global compassionate leadership. It adopts critical developmental initiatives and projects that galvanize the developing nations and advance the US interests.
The United States is the largest contributor to the World Bank, holding approximately 17.5% of the capital shares.
The World Bank provides assistance to poor and middle-income countries to promote their economies. The total US commitment for the bank and its affiliates is estimated at $ 57 billion out of the bank’s total capital of $321 billion.
Trump’s administration is apparently debating the defunding of the WB. Analysts agree that the WB is replete with waste and needs reforms and transformations that are possible and doable. But they warn that to lose “such an invaluable instrument of American soft power and global development” is not a smart policy.
Experts warn that a US withdrawal from the WB would create a dangerous vacuum where China, through initiatives like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Belt and Road Initiative, is lurking to step in and fill any void left by the pullout. This will definitely cost the US its influence and will certainly outweigh any short-term gains.
Experts and investors say that US stepping back would be a gift to other countries, especially China, which holds 5% of the institutions’ shares and votes, and would like to strip the US of its leadership role. The US companies might lose contracts funded by the groups. It could also dissuade the lending partners and undermine their trust in these institutions and their functioning.
The IMF, World Bank, and WTO have maintained the foundation of post-World War II global financial stability. The US defunding of these institutions will render them ineffective and will leave emerging markets as an easy prey to costly loans and financial volatility.
The US backing of the IMF is incredibly important for the institution to manage global financial shocks and predict them. Withdrawal might also deny the IMF access to the resources necessary to early-warning, which might expose emerging economies to sudden and surprising crises.
Mark Sobel, ex-IMF board member and US chair of the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum, in an interview with Reuters, warned that “The US economy would get hurt if there’s economic instability abroad.”
“It would be a disaster,” said Kaan Nazli, emerging market debt portfolio manager at Neuberger Berman.
Likewise, if the US abandons the World Bank, it could create space for alternative lenders, such as China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
As many blocs have already started to seek financial independence and set up their own trading and management systems, even before Trump, some features have shown up their heads.
For example, blocs like the BRICS group have embarked on experimenting with de-dollarizing their trade transactions and adopting exchange with their national currencies, especially Russia and China who endorsed dealing in Yuan and Ruble.
The regional development banks have also stepped in as viable alternative to the World Bank and the IMF, lending their blocs’ members without imposing the restrictive conditions of the two traditional global institutions. Both China and Russia have developed their own payment and money wire systems to dispense with the American SWIFT service, as India and Iran are trying new digital wires. Some blocs in Latin America and Africa have also engaged in growing free trade agreements.
Trump’s obsession with the financial feasibility of the US involvement abroad has rendered US projects and alliances a cumbersome economic burden. All of them should be jettisoned so that Trump can brag about the money he saved for America and the money he milked out of the satellite countries rotating Washington’s orbit.
He ostensibly does not care about how much influence he will lose and how much power his competitors and adversaries will earn. Furthermore, he feels that US should be rewarded for the role it plays in maintaining stability of the regional and international order as a superpower.
Trump’s self-centered policies or what he has shrouded in “America First” motto has put the US and Europe on a collision course, affecting and transforming transatlantic relations. The issues of clash are numerous ranging from NATO to Ukraine, climate to trade and tech regulations to China.
The two sides’ views of the alliance and the world are so divergent that it has become bellicose between both of them.
The Europeans have already started to clash with Trump’s administration over his approach to the Ukrainian war and imposition of trade tariffs. The impact of these collisions will unhinge the foundations of transatlantic relations and reshape the US-European alliance. The most feared aspect of these collisions is that they could be unmendable.
But from Trump’s point of view, Europe is no longer of the same importance as it used to be, especially after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Trump sees that the Europeans are depleting the US resources while preserving their stocks and keeping their semi-socialist economic policies without paying their protection dues.
Additionally, Trump perceives European condescension towards his revolutionary nationalism and bid to export it to Europe. He has also witnessed Europe’s criticism of his policies in the past and praise of Joe Biden. All of it has obviously awakened the arrogant ego in him and sharpened his stubbornness.
This vibe is reminiscent of the mood that prevailed between Europe and the Republican administration under George W Bush Jr. At the time Europeans, especially France and Germany, had raised objections to the US invasion of Iraq.
Trump is actually in a state of inertia with Europe as long as his transactional methods are concerned. He is eyeing, not only more share from the European GDP in the NATO, and defense budgets, but also a preferential status for US exports and companies.
This was articulated in Trump’s Vice President J D Vance’s address in Paris where he denounced the European technology regulations.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was blunt when he said the US would prioritize Asia and create a “division of labor” where Europe takes “responsibility for its own security.”
That may explain why the “Old Continent” has embarked on charting out its own course away from the US, unlike previous differences and verbal altercations.
The more dangerous phenomenon is that the whole cohort of Trump’s team in the second term are in complete conformity with and subjugation for his breakaway orientations. In his first term, there were some bastions of resistance and voices of rejection to his aggressive punitive attitudes.
Besides, Trump looks intent on breaking away with NATO, and he repeatedly expressed his disbelief in its feasibility. His defense and foreign policy teams and advisors are on the same wave and see that they are overstretched.
He is even asking for the impossible when he urged the Europeans to appropriate 5% of their GDP for defense, which is far more than the US defense budget. He knows they will not be able to fulfil this demand and is actually looking for an excuse to withdraw.
This will translate into a reduction in the US involvement in NATO and commitment to the security of the Old Continent. The predatory imperialist US is not on good terms with the liberal pacifist Europe unless a liberal democratic mind takes over in Washington.
But for the time being, the hope is pending on a détente or an agreement on the most contentious issues which might lead to disengagement on the less contentious ones.
Otherwise, the escalation and head-butting on one issue, like trade tariffs, will certainly cause an aggressive confrontation on another, like support for Ukraine.
The unpredictability of Trump does not exclude the notion that he might carry out what he warned about privately in 2018, namely the withdrawal from NATO. This colossal move could shift the global balance of power that has been in place after World War II.
However, such a potential and unprecedented step might present a legal conundrum. In 2020, Congress added a special provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, which sets funding for the US military.
Section 2050A in the act states that “the president cannot unilaterally withdraw from NATO without the approval of the Congress, or the endorsement of two-thirds of the Senate.”
But in 2020, at the end of Trump’s first term, the Department of Justice published an opinion, arguing that withdrawal from the treaty is an exclusive presidential prerogative that Congress cannot restrict. And the Supreme Court has ruled that the executive branch has the authority to recognize foreign governments, even though that power is not specified in the Constitution.
The White House has long maintained that it can withdraw from treaties unless there is congressional opposition.
Karen Sokol, a legislative attorney for the Congressional Research Service, which analyzes issues for Congress, said in an interview with Business Insider, that the courts may reject the Trump administration’s assertion that the executive branch alone can decide to withdraw from treaties.
“A court may find a President’s claim of exclusive constitutional power to withdraw from a treaty to be unpersuasive given that the Constitution is silent about treaty withdrawal powers and that Article II makes treaty entry a power shared between the President and the Senate.”
But still the conservative Supreme Court which granted the President the right to recognize foreign governments, which is not stated in the Constitution, might endow on him the authority to withdraw from NATO.
The sheer idea of US withdrawal from the NATO could trigger a seismic upend in global security with huge implications for NATO’s firepower, budget, and effectiveness, particularly against adversaries like Russia and other rising powers.
The US is the backbone of NATO’s capabilities. It accounts for 70% of the NATO’s total defense spending. It contributes a significant amount of the alliance’s strategic assets, which include more than 800 overseas military bases, advanced defense, and attack systems. It also provides cybersecurity infrastructure and satellite networks.
The US, together with France and Britain, plays a critical role in the NATO’s nuclear sharing program, hosting and maintaining tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.
The US withdrawal would force European nations to drastically increase their defense spending to maintain current capabilities, thus affecting their domestic developmental programs.
They would have to acquire advanced systems to make up for US contributions. In absence of US membership, the Europeans would face a severe shortage in training exercises, intelligence sharing, and severe budget deficit in joint operations.
The presence of the US also acts as a guarantor of discipline and peace among some of the NATO’s adversary member countries, such as Türkiye and Greece, Belgium and Sweden and some Eastern and Western European states.
The US exit would embolden both Russia and China who might seek to extort the Europeans or expand their influence in the continent.
If such a tremendous step is taken, Europe will be left with no choice but to reshuffle its whole defense and foreign policies that were built on dependence. This will also transform its entire economic structure in order to cater for the new demands, which will further burden its social and economic programs.
Europe might even start finding new allies, thrash out new agreements and seek favor with former adversaries.
Nevertheless, Europe is trying hard to keep the current alliance alive with the US as the guarantor of its security and the guardian of its integrity.
Aaron David Miller, a former veteran US diplomat in Republican and Democratic administrations, said it’s not too late for Trump to shift course on foreign policy, especially if he begins to feel pressure from fellow Republicans who expressed concern over economic risks as they seek to retain control of Congress in next year’s mid-term elections.
“What’s happening is not yet beyond the point of no return,” said Miller. “But how much damage is being done now to US relations with friends and how much adversaries will benefit is probably incalculable,” he added.
If Trump holds firm, the next president could try to re-establish Washington’s role as guarantor of the world order, but the obstacles could be steep.
However, the more Trump loiters in correcting his course, the more irreversible the damage he inflicts on the US future will be.
Those who know Trump see a little chance of a dramatic shift. Instead, they expect many countries to make lasting modification in their relationships with the US to avoid or alleviate the impact of his erratic policies, especially that the Republican-controlled Congress has almost abandoned its oversight role and put all their powers at his disposal.
The Republicans might wake up to the bitter reality only when they lose their slim Congress majority in the midterm elections. Only then the downfall of the Trump towering hegemony will start. But if the Republican majority endures, the hope for a salvation will evaporate and the world must prepare for more nightmares.
The Congress might have abdicated its responsibilities in favor of executive power. But hopes remain pinned on other restraints to slow Trump’s mad train.
The first of these bridles and reins are the courts which have already started baring their fangs by invalidating the legality of many of his executive orders and decisions. Some of the orders relate to deporting immigrants before they have the chance to follow the related proceedings, laying off federal employees, and shutting off humanitarian agencies.
The second restraint could be the markets and their violent reactions to Trump’s tariff war and their impact on the prices of major goods and commodities.
Third is the public opinion, which might look relatively patient and giving the president the benefit of the doubt to see if their conditions will improve or will get worse.
And finally, come the mid-term elections, the president will see his performance judged in the ballot boxes. These elections will function as a referendum on his policies.
If Trump carries on with the same destabilizing actions, he might lose his trifecta control over the government. And resultantly, the Republicans might go back to the opposition benches and heap curses and blame on their imbecility and gullibility.
Keep in touch with our news & offers
