Trump at one: power, disruption and the cost of rule by confrontation

One year into Donald Trump’s second term, intent is no longer the question. Impact is. In twelve months, Trump has not simply resumed office; he has reshaped the machinery of the American state, concentrating authority in the executive and treating institutions less as partners in governance and more as obstacles to be overcome.

This presidency has moved with speed and certainty. Executive orders replaced deliberation, firings replaced persuasion, and loyalty emerged as the defining currency of power. The message was clear early on: this would not be a term constrained by precedent.

Governing by shock

The establishment of the Department of Government Efficiency captured the ethos of Trump’s first year. Marketed as a clean-up exercise, it quickly evolved into a tool for dismantling agencies deemed wasteful or ideologically hostile. The closure of USAID was emblematic, framed as fiscal discipline, but widely interpreted as a retreat from America’s global footprint and soft power.

The mass pardoning of individuals connected to the January 6 attack reinforced the same governing philosophy. To supporters, it corrected political injustice. To critics, it blurred the line between protest and insurrection, signalling that political allegiance could override accountability. These decisions were not isolated acts; they were statements about how power would be exercised and protected.

The state turns inward

Nowhere was Trump’s imprint clearer than on immigration and internal security. Deportations accelerated, ICE raids intensified, and federal forces were deployed into American cities. The death of a civilian during an enforcement operation hardened divisions and drew international attention. Trump framed these measures as a restoration of order. Opponents saw a federal government increasingly willing to use force against its own population.

The symbolism was deliberate. A military parade through Washington on Trump’s birthday, the rebranding of the Department of Defense as the “Department of War,” and the rollback of diversity initiatives within the armed forces all underscored a vision of authority rooted in strength, hierarchy and spectacle. Even talk of territorial expansion, from Greenland to Canada, functioned less as policy than as assertion.

Institutions under pressure

Economic policy followed a similar pattern. Trump returned to tariffs as a primary tool, presenting them as leverage against allies and rivals alike. The result was renewed uncertainty for markets and businesses, with trade policy driven as much by political messaging as economic calculation.

Most consequential, however, was Trump’s open confrontation with the Federal Reserve. His public attacks on Chair Jerome Powell, efforts to reshape the Fed’s leadership, and flirtation with criminal investigations marked a sharp departure from the tradition of central bank independence. The episode raised alarms about the fragility of institutional norms once considered untouchable.

The year culminated in legislative victory and administrative paralysis. Trump’s flagship tax and spending package passed, but at the cost of a record 43-day government shutdown. Federal workers went unpaid, food assistance stalled, and blame was traded freely across party lines as governance ground to a halt.

Supporters argue that this disruption was not collateral damage but the goal itself. That entrenched systems needed to be broken before they could be rebuilt. That compromise was a relic of a weaker era.

One year on, Trump has delivered on that promise. The government is leaner, institutions are more pliable, and power is more centralized than at any point in recent memory. Whether this represents renewal or long-term damage remains unresolved — but the precedent has been set.

The real test of Trump’s second term may not be what he does next, but whether the American system can recover from what has already been done.