To be fair, no US
president operates in isolation. The power centres of oil conglomerates, the
military-industrial complex, and Wall Street—longstanding financiers of
electoral campaigns—shape the contours of policymaking. This is not unique to
Trump; it reflects a broader structural reality embedded in the American
political system. Likewise, administrative norms in any government impose
limits, compelling leaders to follow certain procedures irrespective of
personal preference.
What distinguishes Trump,
is his persistent disregard for these constraints. Many of his executive
actions—whether aggressive tariff regimes, abrupt withdrawal from international
agreements, or confrontational moves in international waters—reflect a
governing style marked by impulsiveness rather than foresight. These decisions
have often produced more disruption than strategic advantage, leaving allies
unsettled and adversaries emboldened.
The United States
continues to project itself as the world’s largest and most resilient
democracy, yet Trump’s leadership is testing that claim. His tendency to bypass
institutional checks and frame governance as a personal mandate creates the
perception of a leader more interested in consolidating authority than
strengthening democratic norms. While he may not be a “king” in the literal
sense, some of his actions signal an uncomfortable tilt toward unilateralism.
The cost of this approach
is increasingly visible on the global stage. Instead of enhancing America’s
influence, it has chipped away at its credibility. Partner nations now question
Washington’s consistency, while global institutions struggle to anticipate US
positions on critical issues. For a country that built its reputation on
predictability and democratic stewardship, this erosion is significant.
If the United States
wishes to reclaim moral authority and strategic stability, its leadership must
demonstrate that democracy is anchored in institutions—not in the whims of an
individual.
