Trump: How Power Politics Reshapes the U.S. and the World Order

On January 3, 2026, a military operation codenamed Freedom Sentinel was launched in Caracas, the capital of Venezuela. U.S. special forces raided the Miraflores Palace and arrested President Nicolas Maduro and his wife. The operation resulted in the deaths of at least 80 Venezuelan security personnel and civilians. The White House subsequently issued an unusually brief statement: The United States has restored the rule of law in Venezuela. Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller was more blunt in a CNN interview: The United States of America is now administering Venezuela. We live in a real world governed by strength, force, and power—an iron law that has held true since the beginning of time.

This operation occurred on the eve of the one-year anniversary of Donald Trump's return to the White House, becoming the most naked footnote to the diplomatic philosophy of his second term. While the world was still digesting this shocking event, Trump had already set his sights on the Arctic—he demanded that Denmark sell Greenland to the United States and threatened to impose punitive tariffs on eight European countries, including Germany, until a purchase agreement was reached.

Within a year, this 79-year-old president has, in an almost domineering manner, transformed "America First" from a campaign slogan into a reality of global geopolitics. According to Norwegian international affairs expert Iver B. Neumann, Trump's return has hit the United States and the world like a tsunami. This impact has not only altered Washington's agenda but also shaken the foundations of the international order established since World War 2.

Diplomatic Revolution: From Multilateralism to Power Realism

The foreign policy of Trump's second term presents a paradoxical unity: on one hand, it loudly proclaims the end of the era of the United States as the world's policeman, while on the other hand, it pursues a more aggressive interventionism in the Western Hemisphere. Behind this seemingly contradictory behavior runs a clear central theme—transactional realism based on strength.

Transatlantic Alliance: From Security Dependence to Coercive Bargaining

Europe has experienced the most profound security anxiety since the end of the Cold War over the past year. The Trump administration systematically exploited this anxiety, transforming NATO from a collective defense alliance into a pay-for-service security contractor.

In the summer of 2025, at the NATO Brussels Summit, Trump used the potential reconsideration of Article 5 collective defense commitments as leverage to pressure allies into agreeing to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP within a few years. This figure, more than double the previous 2% target, left finance ministers of major powers such as Germany and France with grave expressions. In exchange, the United States pledged to maintain its military presence in Europe—this practice of commodifying security commitments fundamentally transformed the nature of the alliance.

The Greenland incident pushed this transactional logic to its extreme. When Denmark refused to sell this Arctic territory, rich in rare earth resources and of strategic importance, Trump announced in January 2026 that punitive tariffs would be imposed on eight European countries, including Germany and Norway, which had deployed military personnel to Greenland. The tariffs would increase by 5% monthly starting from February 1. Documents from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative stated bluntly: these tariffs would remain in effect until the United States obtained sovereignty over Greenland.

The reaction from Europe has exposed its strategic dilemma. Although European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen condemned it as a colonial act from the 19th century, member states failed to form a unified countermeasure. Former Norwegian Ambassador to the United States, Kåre Aas, analyzed: Europe still needs the United States. Our own security relies on American guarantees. This asymmetric dependence leaves Europe almost powerless in the face of Trump's weaponization of tariffs—when German cars, French wine, and Italian luxury goods face an additional 25% tariff, political principles often give way to economic realities.

Ironically, this high-pressure approach has objectively accelerated Europe's progress toward defense autonomy. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte assessed that under Trump's pressure, the alliance will become unbreakable in the foreseeable future. The European Union has launched the Strategic Compass 2.0 plan, aiming to establish a 5,000-strong rapid reaction force by 2030 and invest 60 billion euros in developing satellite reconnaissance and missile defense systems. However, this forced independence comes at a high cost and is fraught with uncertainty.

Great Power Rivalry: Maneuvering with Russia, Confronting China Firmly

On the Ukraine issue, Trump demonstrated his unique art of the deal. In the early days of his term, he bypassed Kyiv and Brussels to engage in secret negotiations directly with Putin. Moscow skillfully exploited this—Kremlin spokesperson Peskov repeatedly praised Trump for his pragmatic understanding of Russia's security concerns, while employing delaying tactics in the actual negotiations.

The turning point occurred at the Alaska Summit in August 2025. The talks lasted for nine hours without reaching any written agreement, but Trump left visibly displeased. Accompanying officials revealed that Putin proposed a lucrative resource extraction cooperation plan but refused to make specific commitments regarding the withdrawal from eastern Ukraine. Two months later, the United States announced a new round of sanctions targeting Russia's energy and financial sectors and, for the first time, approved the provision of Army Tactical Missile Systems with a range of 300 kilometers to Ukraine.

Moscow's miscalculation lies in equating Trump's transactional mindset with unprincipled concessions. In reality, Trump has an instinctive aversion to bad deals. When Russia's delaying tactics became apparent, his response was to escalate pressure rather than compromise. This unpredictability, in turn, made the Kremlin more cautious—satellite imagery from January 2026 showed a noticeable slowdown in the buildup of Russian troops in the Belgorod region.

China has chosen a different response strategy. In the face of the trade war reignited by Trump—imposing 25% tariffs on $450 billion worth of Chinese goods—Beijing adopted a combination of reciprocal countermeasures and supply chain restructuring. China not only imposed tariffs on American products such as soybeans and aircraft but, more crucially, played the rare earth card. In the third quarter of 2025, China's rare earth exports to the United States fell by 73% year-on-year, while signing rare earth processing cooperation agreements with Malaysia and Vietnam.

The results are surprising: despite an 18% decline in Sino-US trade volume, China's total annual exports reached a historic high, with exports to ASEAN, Africa, and Latin America increasing by 22%, 31%, and 19%, respectively. Data from the Ministry of Commerce shows that China's share in global manufacturing value added slightly increased from 31.8% in 2024 to 32.1%. Trump's tariff barriers failed to bring about a large-scale return of manufacturing to the United States; instead, they accelerated the diversification process of global supply chains.

A more profound impact occurred at the strategic level. While the Trump administration withdrew from the Paris Agreement and cut funding for the World Health Organization, China increased its foreign development assistance budget by 40%, focusing on climate change and public health projects. During the Venezuela crisis, the Chinese Foreign Ministry called for respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, in stark contrast to U.S. military intervention. This contrast resonated across the Global South—the rotating chair of the African Union, Senegalese President Macky Sall, publicly stated: What we need are partners, not masters.

Domestic Reshaping: The Trumpification of the State Apparatus

If foreign policy reflects Trump's worldview, then domestic governance demonstrates his determination to reshape the state apparatus. This transformation unfolds along three axes: the militarization of immigration policy, the personalization of executive power, and the reconstruction of the social contract.

War Beyond Borders: A Paradigm Shift in Immigration Enforcement

On a cold night in Minneapolis, November 7, 2025. Becca Goode, a 37-year-old kindergarten teacher, and her partner heard a neighbor's alarm—Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) tactical teams were operating nearby. Carrying whistles, they rushed to the scene, attempting to warn undocumented immigrants who might be arrested. Amid the chaos, a masked ICE agent fired a shot that struck Goode, killing her on the spot. A subsequent investigation revealed that Goode was a U.S. citizen and had no connection to immigration enforcement.

This incident triggered nationwide protests, but also revealed new characteristics of Trump's immigration policy: expanding enforcement operations from the border to the interior, shifting from administrative procedures to paramilitary actions. Data from the Department of Homeland Security shows that in the first year of Trump's second term, 605,000 people were deported, with an additional 2.5 million leaving voluntarily. Behind these numbers lies a fundamental change in enforcement methods—ICE formed 12 rapid deployment units, equipped with armored vehicles and drones, to conduct raids in sanctuary cities such as San Francisco, New York, and Chicago.

Legal tools have also been re-excavated. The Department of Justice invoked vague provisions from the 1798 Alien Enemies Act and the 1917 Espionage Act to authorize the indefinite detention of non-citizens when national security is threatened. The federal court system has responded inconsistently: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled some practices unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court, in United States v. California, upheld the federal government's broad discretion in immigration enforcement with a 5-to-4 vote.

The social costs are becoming apparent. Industries reliant on immigrant labor, such as dining, construction, and agriculture, are experiencing severe labor shortages. The California Farm Bureau reported that in 2025, crops worth 2.3 billion dollars went unharvested due to labor shortages. More profound is the cultural shock—a Pew Research Center survey shows that 62% of Americans believe the United States has become less welcoming to immigrants, a figure that was 41% at the end of Trump's first term.

Political Realignment of Tech Giants: From Resistance to Alliance

The evolution of Trump's relationship with Silicon Valley is a classic case of power dynamics. After the Capitol riot in 2021, platforms like Twitter and Facebook suspended his accounts, and tech leaders publicly criticized his remarks. Now, the situation has completely reversed.

Elon Musk is not only one of the largest donors to Trump's campaign but also collaborates deeply on policy matters. The Department of Government Efficiency he leads has reduced approximately 85,000 federal employees and privatized NASA's near-Earth orbit operations to SpaceX. Mark Zuckerberg has made more subtle adjustments—Meta shut down its fact-checking program within the United States, a feature that had repeatedly labeled Trump's posts as misleading information. In return, the Department of Justice provided support in Meta's data privacy dispute with the European Union, and the Secretary of Commerce even threatened retaliatory measures against the EU's digital services tax.

This alliance is built on mutual needs. Tech companies need Trump's relaxed regulatory stance (all antitrust investigations by the Federal Trade Commission against major tech companies have been suspended) and political support in international disputes. Trump needs the funding, platform influence of tech giants, and most importantly—maintaining America's lead over China in key areas such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing.

Apple's situation illustrates the complexity of this relationship. As most of its products are assembled in China, Apple is one of the biggest victims of Trump's tariffs on Chinese goods. The production cost of the iPhone increased by 19% in 2025, but instead of publicly criticizing the government, Tim Cook announced a $10 billion investment to build a chip factory in Texas. Analysis shows that this move is both a response to supply chain risks and a gesture to the White House, demonstrating a return to U.S. manufacturing—even though the factory's capacity can only meet 15% of North American demand.

Rewriting the Social Contract: From the Welfare State to the "Beautiful Big Bill"

The "Beautiful Big Bill" passed in December 2025 may be the most far-reaching domestic legislation of Trump's second term. This 2,400-page budget bill cuts nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid and Medicare spending over the next decade, while reducing the number of people covered by the food stamp program by 12 million.

Supporters call it necessary fiscal discipline—the federal deficit is projected to drop from 5.8% to 3.2% of GDP. Critics warn it is a systematic dismantling of the social safety net. According to Brookings Institution estimates, the bill would increase out-of-pocket medical costs for seniors aged 65 and above by an average of $3,400 per year, while disposable income for low-income households could fall by 11%.

The political process of legislation is equally noteworthy. Utilizing its narrow majority in the House of Representatives (218 to 217), the Republican Party employed a coordinated bill procedure—linking the budget with raising the debt ceiling—forcing Democrats to choose between a government default and accepting spending cuts. The final bill passed with a vote of 219 to 216, with three moderate Republicans voting against it, but their votes were offset by the support of two conservative Democrats.

This political maneuver reflects the legislative characteristics of the Trump era: leveraging procedural tools to maximize partisan gains, even if it means marginalizing traditional consensus politics. When asked about the potential hardships the bill might cause for people's livelihoods, White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt responded: The American people have chosen prosperity, not dependency.

Power Structure and Institutional Resilience

One of the core characteristics of Trump's second term is the unprecedented concentration of executive power. New York University law professor Noah Rosenblum observed: He has completely personalized the presidency. This personalization is reflected not only in policy content but also in governance methods and concepts of power.

The torrent of executive orders and the specter of "projects"

In his first week in office, Trump signed 47 executive orders, surpassing Obama's first year (32) and Biden's first year (28). These orders cover a staggering range: from pardoning 1,500 participants in the Capitol riot to banning federal agencies from using the term "climate change"; from renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the "American Gulf" to setting water flow standards for showerheads in federal buildings.

Many observers have noted that these policies closely align with "Project 2025," drafted by the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation. This 920-page document recommends replacing career bureaucrats with loyalists and significantly expanding presidential executive power. Although Trump distanced himself from it during the campaign, his actions in office have largely implemented its core recommendations point by point.

The judicial system faces a severe test. The Supreme Court has shown unexpected divisions in key cases: in Trump v. Congress, the justices ruled 6 to 3 in favor of the president's broad powers on tariff issues; but in the Immigration Lawyers Association v. Department of Homeland Security, it ruled 5 to 4 that certain ICE enforcement procedures were unconstitutional. This inconsistency reflects the judiciary's difficult balance between respecting executive authority and maintaining checks and balances.

Midterm Elections: A Test Point for Institutional Pressure

The midterm elections in November 2026 will be a critical turning point in Trump's second term. Currently, the Republican Party holds only a one-seat advantage in the House of Representatives (218-217) and a 51-49 majority in the Senate. Historical trends are unfavorable to the ruling party—since World War II, the president's party has lost an average of 28 House seats in midterm elections.

But Trump is breaking the norm. He is deeply involved in the primaries to an unprecedented extent, personally endorsing candidates and hosting fundraising events. Data from the Republican National Committee shows that Trump has raised 230 million dollars for House candidates, far exceeding the fundraising scale of any previous president's midterm elections. The risk of this personalized campaign is that the election results will be directly viewed as a referendum on Trump himself.

The Brookings Institution's William Galston predicts: If the Republican Party loses the House of Representatives, Trump will become a lame-duck president. Adding to the complexity, Trump has hinted that he might question unfavorable election results. At a rally in January, he said: Midterm elections are traditionally unfair to the party in power, perhaps we shouldn't hold them. Although the spokesperson later clarified this was a joke, the statement sparked a new round of discussion among supporters about election integrity.

Another variable is the Epstein files. Congress passed a law requiring the Department of Justice to disclose the investigation records of the deceased sex offender. Although Trump signed the bill, the DOJ only partially released the documents, citing national security concerns. The conservative media outlet *The Federalist* questioned: If there is nothing to hide, why fear disclosure? This issue is eroding Trump's credibility within the MAGA base.

An Uncertain Future: The Limits of Power Politics

The core lesson from the first year of Trump's second term is: how rapidly executive power can reshape the political landscape both domestically and internationally in the absence of effective checks and balances. However, this reshaping possesses structural fragility.

Diplomatically, the unilateral actions of the United States are fostering new alliance structures. The strategic coordination among China, Russia, and Iran is growing increasingly close, with the three countries holding their first joint military exercise in the Indian Ocean in 2025. Although the European Union remains militarily reliant on the United States, it is establishing a democratic supply chain initiative with Japan, South Korea, and Australia to reduce dependence on both China and the United States in critical minerals and technology. The world is not reverting to a bipolar order but is entering a more complex and fluid multi-node system.

Domestically, executive order-driven changes carry inherent instability. Research from the Biden University Law Center indicates that the average lifespan of a modern presidential executive order is 7.2 years—meaning the next president can relatively easily revoke them. Many of Trump's policies, such as the relaxation of environmental regulations, strengthened immigration enforcement, and tariff measures, were built on executive orders rather than legislation. This creates the potential for dramatic policy swings.

The deeper challenge lies in the fragmentation of societal consensus. A Pew Research Center poll from January 2026 shows that 92% of Republicans support Trump's governance direction, while support among Democrats is only 8%. This polarization is reflected not only in policy preferences but also in the perception of facts—on fundamental issues such as whether the U.S. economy is improving, whether climate change is real, and whether the 2020 election was fair, voters from the two parties have completely opposite answers.

On July 4, 2026, the United States will celebrate its 250th anniversary. Trump plans to hold the largest celebration in history in Washington, including the construction of a temporary structure in front of the Lincoln Memorial that can accommodate 50,000 people. However, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger warned in his final interview before his death: a nation cannot sustain itself solely by celebrating the past; it requires a shared vision for the future.

Trump's second term has demonstrated that strong power can change the rules of the game, force allies to make concessions, and reshape the domestic agenda. However, what it has yet to prove is whether this model based on transactions and coercion can build a lasting order—whether international or domestic. As the world adapts to the Trump rhythm, the next question naturally arises: How will this system evolve when strong power encounters even stronger constraints, or when the cost of transactions exceeds the benefits?

The answer may not fully emerge in the second term, but the trend is already clear. What we are witnessing is not just the governing style of a president, but a comprehensive test of a governance philosophy—concerning power, legitimacy, and what leadership means in an increasingly divided world. The outcome of this test will define the United States and the world for decades to come.