In a matter of months since U.S. President Donald Trump began his second term, the landscape of both the United States and its international posture has shifted dramatically and possibly irreversibly.
Domestically, Trump has not only undermined basic constitutional rights but also fostered an atmosphere hostile to immigration.
This hostility has rendered the United States less welcoming to visitors who contribute to the nation’s productivity and innovation.
On the global stage, Trump’s disregard for established norms and laws has significantly weakened American credibility, turning the U.S. into an unreliable partner internationally and causing apprehension even among traditional allies.
The repercussions of Trump’s actions are likely to persist long after his term concludes.
To fully grasp the extensive damage incurred, one must examine the power dynamics that enabled Trump to execute such radical policies.
Currently, Trump governs in an environment marked by the near-complete dismantling of checks and balances regarding the executive branch, especially concerning foreign policy and national security.
In the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress has progressively granted the presidency expanded authority over foreign affairs, failing to implement measures to retract those powers.
The Supreme Court too has often refrained from offering meaningful constraints, contributing to a significantly powerful executive branch.
Trump has inherited a national security apparatus that operates with minimal oversight.
Many of his actions during his first term aimed to enhance presidential authority even further, as Congress and the Supreme Court have generally resisted efforts to rein in the presidency.
Consequently, Trump can undertake almost any action pertaining to foreign policy or national security without significant hindrance—including controversial measures like internment of noncitizens, enacting sweeping tariffs, reversing mandated foreign aid commitments, and even leveraging military forces domestically.
Scholars specializing in authoritarianism recognize Trump’s approach to foreign policy as reminiscent of a dictator’s conduct.
Throughout history, Washington has engaged in dubious international practices, yet the unprecedented nature of Trump’s second term starkly contrasts with his predecessors, who faced more limitations in their foreign policy endeavors.
With Trump’s unrestrained authority, the presidency resembles a dictatorship, allowing impulsive decisions to convert into policy without procedural checks.
Although Trump may not have initiated the erosion of presidential constraints, he has undoubtedly become its greatest beneficiary.
While prior administrations laid the groundwork for increased executive power, Trump has managed to dismantle the remaining guardrails protecting against abuse.
Notably, Congress’s failure to hold Trump accountable for the January 6 insurrection, coupled with the Supreme Court’s ruling granting broad immunity to presidents regarding their official duties, has eliminated the final constraints on presidential power.
The American presidency has long exhibited traits of imperial authority, but never before has a president attempted to act with such absolute power akin to that of an emperor.
The extensive damage inflicted by Trump on U.S. diplomacy is difficult to quantify fully, yet three primary categories of destruction become increasingly evident: Trump has severely impaired the capacity of U.S. statecraft.
His administration, through the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has diminished the federal workforce through aggressive measures, including layoffs and intimidation of current employees.
Actions against the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have resulted in the dismantling of entire agencies.
While some of these maneuvers may have breached legal boundaries, the ramifications have often become irreversible by the time judicial intervention was possible.
Political scientist Daniel Drezner characterized this phenomenon as the formation of ‘the shallow state.’
Consequently, the foreign policy and national security architecture of the United States has suffered considerable attrition without any apparent budgetary savings, indicating that the underlying motivations for such decisions stemmed from a fundamental disdain for expertise, a thirst for vengeance, and a desire to eliminate barriers to corruption.
After the initial term’s frustrations, Trump has appointed unqualified loyalists to key positions, such as Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense and Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence, facilitating confirmation by leveraging the Senate.
While some expected a moderation from Trump after nominating Senator Marco Rubio, known for his conservative foreign policy approach, as secretary of state, Rubio quickly aligned himself with Trump’s efforts, further assisting DOGE in dismantling USAID.
In this second term, Trump is the first president to truly aim for imperial status.
The trust and goodwill the United States previously enjoyed have been further eroded, often in real-time during televised events.
Notable instances include Trump’s confrontational press conferences with leaders of allied nations, such as Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky and South Africa’s Cyril Ramaphosa.
Trump’s tariffs on April 2 marked another severe blow to U.S. diplomacy—a move that has sparked legal challenges that suggest some remnant checks on presidential authority.
However, Trump’s willingness to pursue alternative avenues to implement tariffs may indicate his intent to circumvent legal restrictions.
Nevertheless, the damage inflicted upon the U.S. reputation is already substantial, jeopardizing long-standing agreements and creating hesitation among global leaders to re-engage in serious negotiations with the United States.
Despite earlier efforts to undermine institutions such as the State Department and the military, which experienced significant attrition during the first Trump administration, many tools of U.S. power remained functional then.
The subsequent Biden administration has managed to reinvigorate certain instrumental capabilities, particularly within the intelligence community, which proved crucial prior to Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
However, the task of recovering from Trump’s second-term assault poses even greater challenges.
The broader scope and scale of personnel loss, including expertise in previously unaffected scientific agencies critical to American innovation, complicate the rebuilding process.
Further exacerbating matters, this term has witnessed the launch of an ideological campaign in the form of Project 2025, which aims to systematically undermine the federal workforce’s morale, discouraging employees from executing their roles effectively.
Restoring the expertise and experience of the U.S. federal bureaucracy will take a generational effort rather than a single administration.
As crises arise—inevitably in the future—the U.S. may find itself lacking the necessary resources and capability to navigate them effectively.
The significance of the accountability vacuum now permeating the executive branch has never been more pronounced.
Trump’s actions have illuminated the extent of power available to the presidency and the consequences of entrusting such power to someone disinterested in adhering to its limits.
This evolving crisis has deep roots, stemming from decades of accumulating executive authority largely unopposed.
Before Trump assumed office, checks and balances were already considerably weakened.
Two notable developments stand out—expanded presidential power post-9/11 and the reluctance of political elites to confront the failures stemming from the Iraq war and the 2008 financial crisis.
After 9/11, Congress voluntarily broadened the president’s powers for counterterrorism, inadvertently entrenching a structure difficult to dismantle.
Hesitant to obstruct the fight against terrorism, Congress refrained from exercising adequate oversight, even as missteps such as the Iraq conflict became evident.
The financial crisis and subsequent bailout of large financial institutions further altered the political landscape, reinforcing a perception of presidential power capable of unilateral decision-making in crises while insulated from accountability.
Historically, crises often catalyze reforms, yet America has not witnessed this in the aftermath of either the war on terror or the financial calamity.
The intention to maintain a militarized presidential apparatus capable of acting nearly without restraint persists to this day.
Consequently, the existing political framework has largely sidelined Congress from wielding meaningful influence over national security, with prior authorizations for military force in Iraq and Afghanistan remaining on the books.
Subsequent presidents, including Trump, have exploited these authorizations, extending their implications beyond their original intent.
For instance, President Obama engaged in drone strikes and interventions in Yemen and Syria, and during his term, Trump executed controversial military strikes, such as the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, escalating tensions with Iran.
Trump’s actions, while also fraught with risk, often reflect an extension of previous behaviors by presidents, including the use of military forces in domestic settings.
In Trump’s second term, however, the absence of checks from his advisors or conservative figures within his Cabinet has exacerbated his most dangerous impulses.
Previous structural defenses capable of mitigating some of Trump’s excesses have faded.
Following his acquittal in the second impeachment trial concerning his role in the January 6 insurrection, Congress made it abundantly clear it was no longer committed to acting as a check on Trump’s power.
Additionally, a July 2024 ruling by the Supreme Court granted Trump considerable immunity from prosecution concerning actions tied to his official capacity, further shielding him from accountability and making it improbable for him to face consequences for purported violations of law during his tenure.
The ramifications of this erosion of accountability extend internationally.
Scholars used to categorize global regimes into democracies and non-democracies—where authoritarian regimes were deemed homogeneous.
However, recent studies unveil a broader spectrum of authoritarianism, revealing significant differences among these systems that influence foreign policy and security choices.
Personalist dictatorships, in particular, allow for erratic decision-making devoid of elite constraints.
Trump’s presidency increasingly resembles these personalist authoritarian regimes, characterized by a lack of institutional checks and balances.
In foreign affairs and national security, the presidency now operates with very few limitations.
While the courts still offer some checks, these often prove inadequate given the political leanings of the current Supreme Court, which could tilt favorably toward Trump’s actions.
As the second Trump administration exercises its authority, it has utilized foreign policy as a justification for various contentious actions.
For instance, Rubio’s initiatives aimed at detaining foreign students, ostensibly for their participation in protests, rely on a law that permits the secretary of state to remove noncitizens under certain broad conditions.
The use of this law keeps evolving, and while courts may intervene, the administration exploits the uncertainties to carry out its agenda.
The increasing disregard for procedural norms raises alarms about basic due process being undermined.
Applying foreign policy themes to justify overreach signals a troubling awareness of the administration’s latitude in this realm.
In instances of genuine national emergencies, such as terrorist attacks, a president could stretch executive powers further still into domestic affairs, amplifying the threat to civil liberties.
Trump’s actions have effectively stripped away the final vestiges of presidential accountability, delegating authority to future leaders, who may choose whether to respect the rule of law and adhere to constitutional frameworks.
This absence of limitations raises profound concerns for U.S. foreign policy.
An environment characterized by unrestrained executive action implies that future administrations might repeat Trump’s reckless military confrontations, perilous trade relations, and unpredictable foreign policy decision-making.
The overall consequences of the second Trump administration’s methodology on the prospects for American foreign policy—regardless of party affiliation—prove detrimental.
If there is no sincere attempt to address the systemic failures of accountability within the executive branch, the United States risks sliding further into unpredictable governance.
If American citizens, politicians, and civil servants aspire to confront the chaos left in Trump’s wake, two crucial steps are necessary.
First, there must be a commitment to addressing previous violations of law and norms.
Individuals serving in this administration, especially in high-ranking positions, must face scrutiny for their actions, potentially through judicial proceedings or congressional hearings that enable a critical examination of their conduct.
It’s imperative to differentiate between those who acted unlawfully and others simply pursuing administrative policy goals, establishing a framework that prevents criminalization of policy disagreements.
The second key step involves rejuvenating institutional accountability mechanisms.
Future presidents should strive to ensure checks on their power, contemplating how they would perceive a future president from the opposing party exercising unfettered authority.
Congress must assume an active role in limiting executive overreach once again, though extreme polarization and institutional inertia could hinder its effectiveness.
Therefore, Congress should develop automatic oversight measures that do not rely solely on political will.
Enhanced reporting requirements could compel the executive branch to provide regular updates on national security matters, and high-level hearings could demand the presence of key officials to address the legislature directly.
Additionally, Congress should consider inviting the president to engage in multiple addresses throughout the year, thereby fostering an expectation of accountability and dialogue.
With Congress increasingly compelled to assert its role in national security matters, a political expectation must be reestablished for the legislature to engage with the executive and hold it responsible for its actions.
The repercussions stemming from the second Trump administration on the future of U.S. foreign policy are already substantial.
Without a serious effort toward accountability and a thoughtful reconstruction of institutional powers, Americans can anticipate a future marked by not only ostentatious military displays but also military entanglements and unpredictable relations on the global stage.
image source from：https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/imperial-president-home-emperor-abroad
