Trump Despite It All: A Year of Quiet Deconstruction

The Global Trade War

One of the most striking features of Trump 2.0’s economic policy was the systematic use of tariffs as the primary tool of international relations. Beginning in April 2025, the administration implemented a system of reciprocal tariffs that affected major trading partners, including China, Brazil, and European countries. Tariffs were adjusted several times throughout the year, creating predictable instability that disrupted global supply chains and drove up prices for American consumers.

The administration justified this protectionist approach as necessary to reduce trade deficits, protect American jobs, and bring manufacturing back to the United States. However, economists pointed out that the tariffs imposed significant costs on the U.S. economy, including job losses in sectors dependent on imports and higher prices for consumer goods. The response from trading partners, in the form of retaliatory tariffs, has exacerbated these negative effects, leading to a decline in U.S. exports across several key sectors.

Environmental Deregulation

The Trump administration undertook a systematic dismantling of environmental regulations put in place by previous administrations. The executive order “Unlocking American Energy” of January 20, 2025, launched this process, followed by numerous specific measures aimed at removing barriers to fossil fuel production. The Clean Power Plan was repealed, vehicle emissions standards were relaxed, and vast areas of land and sea were opened up to oil and gas exploration.

These policies were presented as necessary to stimulate economic growth and reduce U.S. energy dependence. However, scientists and environmental organizations warned that this deregulation would have disastrous consequences for the climate and public health. Greenhouse gas emissions have risen, while air and water quality have deteriorated in some regions. States and municipalities have attempted to fill the regulatory void through their own initiatives, but the administration has used its federal authority to challenge these efforts in court.

The Controversial Tax Reform

The Trump administration succeeded in getting Congress to pass a major tax reform in 2025, significantly reducing taxes on corporations and high-income households. Supporters of the reform argued that it would stimulate investment and economic growth. However, independent analyses suggested that the benefits would be concentrated among the wealthiest, while the middle class and low-income households would see few direct benefits—and in some cases, even tax increases.

The reform also significantly reduced federal revenue, exacerbating the budget deficit and the national debt. The administration proposed offsetting these losses through spending cuts in social programs, which drew strong opposition from Democrats and certain civil society organizations. The long-term effects of this reform on economic inequality and the country’s fiscal sustainability remain uncertain, but initial analyses suggest a widening of wealth disparities.

What strikes me most about this economic revolution is its fundamental inhumanity. The Trump administration’s policies sacrifice vulnerable communities, the environment, and future generations in the name of illusory, immediate growth. I find it hard to understand how a society can accept that a few grow even richer while others see their essential services cut, their air polluted, and their future prospects compromised. This is a view of the economy as an end in itself, disconnected from the reality experienced by the majority of Americans and the demands of intergenerational justice.

The Creation of the Department of Government Efficiency

On January 20, 2025, the executive order “Establishing and Implementing the President’s Department of Government Efficiency” created this new agency with a mission to streamline government operations and eliminate what has been described as “waste, fraud, and abuse” in the federal civil service. The DOGE was granted broad powers to audit existing agencies, recommend job cuts, and propose structural reorganizations. During its first year, the agency conducted audits of more than two hundred federal programs, recommending savings of several billion dollars.

Critics have pointed out that the DOGE’s approach prioritized short-term cost cuts over long-term efficiency, and that many of the recommendations would have negative impacts on the quality of government services. Organizations representing federal employees have documented a significant decline in morale among civil servants, with rising voluntary turnover rates and increasing difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified staff. The agency has also been accused of disproportionately targeting progressive programs and agencies responsible for environmental protection and civil rights.

Civil Service Reform

The Trump administration undertook a radical restructuring of the federal civil service, aimed at increasing the executive branch’s flexibility in appointing and dismissing employees. The April 2025 executive order “Strengthening Probationary Periods in the Federal Service” extended probationary protections to a greater number of positions, making it easier to terminate employees deemed not aligned with the administration’s objectives. New policies were also implemented to streamline the loyalty and security clearance process.

These reforms were presented as necessary to improve government efficiency and eliminate what were described as entrenched “careerists” who would resist the administration’s political priorities. However, critics warned that these changes would undermine the independence and technical expertise of the civil service, making it more vulnerable to politicization. Professional civil service organizations have reported an increase in harassment and retaliation against employees who voice dissent, creating a climate of fear that undermines the government’s ability to effectively serve the public.

The Centralization of Executive Power

One of the most striking features of the second Trump administration was the unprecedented concentration of power in the hands of the president and a small circle of loyal advisors. Traditional decision-making processes involving departments and agencies were bypassed or scaled back, with a marked preference for executive orders and direct administrative actions. Cabinet secretaries saw their authority diminished in favor of White House advisers who often lacked government experience but enjoyed the president’s personal trust.

This centralization of power has strengthened the administration’s ability to act quickly and in a coordinated manner, but it has also weakened the mechanisms of consultation and oversight that normally ensure the quality and legitimacy of government decisions. Experts have noted an increase in policy and legal errors resulting from the bypassing of the usual channels of expertise. The exclusion of specialized departments from decision-making processes has also reduced the government’s ability to anticipate the unintended consequences of its policies.

What terrifies me about this concentration of power is the silent erosion of the checks and balances that constitute the very essence of American democracy. The “checks and balances” that have been the strength of the American system for more than two centuries are being systematically circumvented or weakened. I feel a deep sense of fear in the face of this normalization of an arbitrary executive branch, where the only limit seems to be the president’s personal will. It is as if we are witnessing the gradual transformation of a constitutional democracy into an autocratic system, and what is most frightening is that this is happening without the majority of people being fully aware of it.

Withdrawal from International Organizations

The Trump administration continued and accelerated its policy of disengagement from international organizations and agreements. In 2025, the United States officially announced its withdrawal from the World Health Organization, citing concerns about the handling of the pandemic and the disproportionate financial burden on the United States. The administration also reduced its financial contributions to numerous United Nations agencies and suspended its participation in several multilateral agreements, particularly in the areas of the environment and human rights.

The administration justified these withdrawals as necessary to protect U.S. sovereignty and reduce the United States’ disproportionate financial contributions. However, critics warned that these measures would weaken U.S. global leadership and reduce the country’s ability to influence international decisions. Traditional allies have expressed concern over the United States’ growing isolationism, fearing that it would create a vacuum that other powers—notably China—might be ready to fill.

The Pragmatic Approach Toward Russia

The Trump administration’s policy toward Russia marked a significant shift from that of previous administrations. The president has expressed support for ending military aid to Ukraine, calling for a negotiated resolution that would recognize the territories annexed by Russia. Although Congress has managed to temporarily block this policy, the administration has gradually reduced funding for Ukraine and has pressured European allies to do the same.

This approach was justified as necessary to prevent military escalation and protect U.S. economic interests. However, critics warned that it would encourage Russian aggression and jeopardize European security. Security experts have emphasized that normalizing territorial annexations by force would send a dangerous message to other expansionist powers. European allies have expressed concern over what they perceive as a abandonment of U.S. security commitments.

The Intervention in Venezuela

In 2026, the Trump administration carried out a covert military intervention in Venezuela aimed at overthrowing the government of Nicolás Maduro and securing access to the country’s vast oil reserves. The operation, involving special forces and local rebel groups, was carried out without a formal declaration of war and without consulting Congress. Although the operation encountered significant obstacles, it marked a return to direct interventionism in Latin America.

The administration justified this intervention as necessary to protect U.S. energy interests and support the democratic opposition in Venezuela. However, critics pointed out that it violated international law and the principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. Human rights organizations have documented serious human rights violations committed by U.S.-backed groups. The operation also exacerbated tensions with other Latin American countries, which denounced what they perceive as U.S. neocolonialism.

When I learn that my government is intervening militarily in another country to secure oil resources, I feel a deep sense of shame and anger that leaves me speechless. This is a return to the worst mistakes of the past—imperialist policies that have caused so much suffering around the world. How can we claim to defend democracy abroad while violating the fundamental principles of international law and sacrificing innocent lives in the name of economic interests? It is a hypocrisy that deeply disgusts me and makes me doubt the very morality of our leaders.

Mass Protests

In response to the Trump administration’s policies, an unprecedented citizen resistance movement emerged across the United States. The “No Kings” movement in October 2025 brought together more than seven million people in hundreds of cities, marking one of the largest demonstrations in American history. Thousands of other smaller protests took place throughout the year, addressing causes ranging from the protection of civil rights to environmental advocacy and the preservation of democracy.

These movements were characterized by their diversity and creativity. Organizers used innovative tactics to attract media attention and mobilize segments of the population that had not traditionally participated in political activism. Social media played a crucial role in coordinating and expanding these movements, enabling the rapid dissemination of information and decentralized organization. Despite repression and the administration’s attempts to delegitimize these movements, they continued to grow in scale and sophistication.

Legal Battles

Civil rights organizations and environmental advocacy groups filed hundreds of lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s policies. The ACLU, in particular, filed more than 200 lawsuits during the first year of Trump’s second term, targeting executive orders, regulations, and administrative actions deemed unconstitutional or illegal. These efforts led to significant victories, with several administration measures being temporarily or permanently blocked by the courts.

These legal battles required considerable resources but also created a network of lawyers and organizations ready to defend the Constitution and the rule of law. The lawsuits have also provided an important platform for documenting the negative impacts of the administration’s policies and for informing the public about their rights and protections. Although the results have been mixed, these legal efforts have been an essential part of the democratic resistance.

What inspires me most about this resistance is the courageous determination of the thousands of Americans who refuse to give in to despair. I am deeply moved by the stories of ordinary people who step up—often at the risk of their jobs or personal safety—to defend civil rights, protect the environment, and preserve democracy. It is a powerful demonstration of the human spirit’s resilience in the face of adversity, a reminder that even in the darkest moments, there remains a spark of hope and dignity. These people are the true heroes of our time.

Local Action

In the face of federal policies, many states, municipalities, and local communities have taken initiatives to protect their citizens and maintain essential services. Democratic governors have used their veto power to block federal initiatives in their states, while Democratic-controlled legislatures have passed laws protecting civil rights, the environment, and social programs. Cities have declared themselves “sanctuary” cities to protect immigrants, and communities have created mutual aid networks to help the most vulnerable.

This local action was particularly important in areas where federal policies had the greatest impact, such as immigration, health care, and civil rights. Community organizations played a crucial role by providing services that the federal government had scaled back or eliminated, and by helping citizens navigate an increasingly complex legal and bureaucratic landscape. These efforts demonstrated the resilience of American civil society and the ability of communities to organize and support one another in the face of major challenges.

The Moment of Truth

One year after Donald Trump’s return to the White House, the United States finds itself at a critical turning point. The institutional, economic, and social transformations implemented by the administration have permanently reshaped the American political landscape, regardless of the outcome of future elections. Traditional checks and balances have been weakened, and democratic safeguards are under pressure as they have not been in decades. Political polarization has reached dangerous levels, and trust in institutions is at an all-time low.

However, massive and determined citizen resistance offers an encouraging counterpoint to this bleak assessment. The millions of Americans who have mobilized to defend civil rights, protect the environment, and preserve democracy represent a significant political force that cannot be ignored. Civil society organizations have demonstrated their ability to adapt and fight unjust policies, using every tool at their disposal—from protests to legal battles to grassroots action.

What we are experiencing in the United States is a moment of appalling gravity, but also one of profound historical significance. We are witnessing a crucial test for American democracy, a moment when the values and principles that have shaped this country are being put to an unprecedented test. I feel a heavy responsibility toward future generations—the responsibility to fulfill our role in this struggle to preserve our freedoms and our shared dignity. The future is uncertain, but what is certain is that our response today will determine the country in which our children will live tomorrow. We cannot afford to lose hope.

Lessons to Be Learned

The first year of Trump’s second term has revealed both the vulnerability of democratic institutions and the resilience of civil society. Constitutional safeguards are not automatic: they require constant vigilance and determined action on the part of citizens. A president’s unpopularity is not enough to curb his actions when power structures favor the concentration of authority in the hands of the executive branch.

However, organized resistance can have a significant impact, even under difficult circumstances. Legal victories, mass protests, and local action have all helped limit the damage and preserve spaces for resistance. The United States will emerge transformed from this period, but the nature of that transformation remains to be determined by the collective action of citizens and civil society organizations in the years to come.