The first two months of Donald Trump’s second presidency have seen a whirlwind of executive orders and policy measures. With the scope and implications of these actions often seeming difficult to break down,Peter Finn offers four ways to think about the early days of ‘Trump 2.0’, from Trump’s anger and transactional leadership to whether he now represents an historic inflection point.
In the two months since taking office as US President for the second time, Donald Trump has attempted to dismantle much of the domestic policy work of his predecessor Joe Biden, while also approaching foreign affairs in a manner that, depending on one’s viewpoint, is perplexing, insulting, outlandish, or needed. Given the scale and scope of his actions, grounding oneself intellectually can be challenging. With this in mind, here are four ways of thinking about the early stages of Trump 2.0.
1) Trump is angry and transactional, with a charisma that appeals to some
Trump often appears to see the world in simplistic terms and is very angry. Angry about trade, angry about immigration, and (it often seems most of all) angry about his treatment by others. He also has charisma that asserts a strong pull on some, and can be funny at times even to his detractors.
By channelling this anger and charisma, Trump has managed to capture one of the most influential political parties in the world and, in doing so, managed to become the leader of the world’s most powerful state; not once, but twice. His transactional approach means that no one is ever permanently an ally or an enemy (think North Korea in his first term). This approach can also mean that Trump can change his stance on issues with (for those trying to engage with him) frustrating regularity. For social scientists, trying to understand how this anger, charisma, and transactional approach, as qualities of his leadership, impact events represents the agency side of the structure-agency ledger.
2) Trump is the symptom not the cause
Those who put emphasis on the structural side of the ledger may be tempted to view Trump, irrespective of the way his message is delivered, as a symptom of broader trends rather than the cause of them. Some in US society have benefited from globalisation in recent decades. Indeed, as BBC journalist Faisal Islam recently noted, the US has likely been an overall beneficiary. However, many in the US have not seen the benefits of this globalisation. As with the vote for Brexit in the UK, the popularity of Trump is understood by some to, at least in part, reflect a frustration with the globalised political-economy that emerged from the end of the Cold War that is blamed for the shrinking of the US’ manufacturing base.
“President Trump Addresses Joint Session of Congress – March 4, 2025” by The White House is United States government work.
For those who see Trump in these terms, without a long-term plan to deal with the blowback against this political-economy, the Democratic Party (or Republicans for that matter) will struggle to find a consistent counter narrative to govern beyond Trump-like politics. Interestingly, a podcast recently launched by California Governor Gavin Newsome suggests powerful voices in the Democratic Party are looking to incorporate elements of Trumpian style politics into their messaging rather than thinking beyond it.
3) Trump’s style is disarming, but his narratives are not all completely new
Trump’s second presidency is seeing the reheating of many old narratives, particularly in foreign affairs. For decades US presidential administrations have encouraged European allies to spend more on military and security. In the 1990s Bill Clinton warned that then planned NATO expansion was ‘not free of cost’, with Condoleezza Rice, who would go on to be a key part of the administration of George W. Bush, saying in 2000 that ‘spending is probably going to have to increase’. Barack Obama in 2016, meanwhile, said ‘Europe has sometimes been complacent about its own defence’.
As such, though he has delivered the message in a different form, Trump’s chastising of Europe over spending on military and security does not come completely out of the blue, even if his tone differs from those who have come before him. If Europe wants to continue to benefit from US security guarantees, so the logic goes, it must start to pay its fair share for it.
4) The tides of history might be turning
We might be at a historic inflection point. But it can be hard to know in the moment whether something is reflective of a newly forming historic trend or a flash in the pan in the broad sweep of US history. Is Trump the harbinger of long-term changes (see point 2), or is he just an oddly charismatic businessman turned politician willing to play on people’s fears and anxieties in pursuit of power whose political style cannot really be emulated (see point 1)?
Trump’s second election victory suggests a trend of sorts, though he has actually only won the popular vote once in three elections, but the 2024 result is the most recent electoral data point we have. Moreover, his approval ratings seem to be slipping according to some recent polls and inflation might jump markedly as a result of tariffs he has introduced. Moreover, if the Republicans perform poorly in the 2026 midterms, the ability of his administration to dictate the narrative of US politics could be reduced. As such, while Trump is clearly significant in contemporary political terms, and certainly needs to be taken seriously as a result, longer-term significance is yet to be determined.