Trump’s Second Term Year One: Instinct Over Strategy, Militarized Power, and Internal Disorder

Trump’s Second Term Year One: Instinct Over Strategy, Militarized Power, and Internal Disorder

✍️ 𝓑𝔂: 𝓓𝓻. 𝓗𝓪𝓷𝓪 𝓢𝓪𝓪𝓭𝓪

𝓐𝓵𝓰𝓲𝓮𝓻𝓼 – 𝓙𝓪𝓷𝓾𝓪𝓻𝔂 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔 – In a ceremony designed as a self-congratulatory coronation of a year in power, Donald Trump appeared less like a head of state addressing the public than a defendant pleading his case before an imaginary jury. At a press conference marking the first anniversary of his second term, the U.S. president presented what he described as an “exceptional” record, leaning on a discourse that fused political self-assertion with personal certainty. He spoke of having “ended global wars” as an unprecedented achievement, claimed superiority over all previous administrations, and openly asserted that he deserved “a Nobel Prize for every war he stopped.” By invoking his first term and reiterating his role in “rebuilding the military,” Trump once again anchored his favorite equation: expanding military power equals unquestionable international stature.

The occasion quickly shed any pretense of being a purely celebratory address. It soon turned into a platform for domestic political confrontation. Trump launched sharp attacks against his predecessor, Joe Biden, branding him “the worst president in American history” and accusing his administration of having “allowed criminals into America.” He described the so-called “open borders” policy as “the dumbest policy imaginable.” Delivered in a highly charged political climate, with new electoral deadlines approaching, the speech went beyond a review of achievements and became an integral part of an ongoing internal political battle.

Yet this narrative of success and restored strength collides with a far more complex political and security reality. While the United States is expanding the mobilization of its security apparatus to pursue migrants within its own borders, signs of preparation for external confrontations are simultaneously intensifying, whether through an unprecedented surge in defense spending or increasingly aggressive military rhetoric toward perceived adversaries. The internal and external agendas no longer appear as separate trajectories, but rather as two expressions of a single orientation that is redefining the state, its instruments, and the limits of its actions.

As the first year of Trump’s second term comes to a close, this convergence raises a question that transcends electoral disputes or provocative statements: what does it mean for the world’s most powerful state to be governed in the absence of a coherent strategic vision, replaced instead by a logic of force display and confrontation? Are we witnessing a president acting on rational calculations, or a mode of instinct-driven governance that blurs the boundary between domestic and foreign policy? Answering these questions requires a deeper reading of the policies that have defined Trump’s first year back in office and what they reveal about troubling shifts in the nature of American power.

Deconstructing this first year points to an intensely intertwined political and security landscape, where domestic and foreign policies are so deeply enmeshed that separating the two becomes nearly impossible. Within this context, researcher Robert Reich offers a bleak assessment of these trajectories, arguing that they cannot be reduced to situational decisions but instead belong to a single logic that is redefining the state’s relationship with power, both internally and externally.

In a statement to Elayem News, Reich contends that the United States is living in a state of continuous mobilization, simultaneously internalized as security enforcement and externalized as aggression. He describes a scene in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and Border Patrol units are deployed across several states to hunt down migrants and classify individuals, while the president, in parallel, plans airstrikes against foreign countries. This simultaneity, he argues, confirms that Trump is “placing America on a war footing, domestically and internationally,” reflecting an all-encompassing confrontational mindset.

Within this framework, Reich focuses on deep structural shifts within the security apparatus, citing investments by Immigration and Customs Enforcement exceeding 100 million dollars under what the agency itself calls “wartime hiring.” The stated objective is to recruit ten thousand new agents in addition to the existing twenty thousand. Yet, as Reich explains, the true significance of this expansion lies not only in its scale but in the categories being targeted for recruitment and the populist rhetoric surrounding it, invoking “sacred duty” and “defense of the homeland” against “foreign invaders.”

This domestic escalation, Reich insists, is inseparable from the logic of military expansion abroad. Trump’s declared intention to request a defense budget of 1.5 trillion dollars for the upcoming fiscal year—an increase of nearly 66 percent compared to the 2026 budget—signals the continued reliance on hard power as the central instrument of influence management. The picture thus comes into focus: a state that securitizes its interior, inflates its military spending, and redefines its global position through confrontation and spectacle.

At this point, examining the ideological foundations of these policies becomes unavoidable. According to Reich, there is no meaningful distinction between Trump’s domestic and foreign policies, as both are rooted in what he describes as “hysterical ideas” that dominate the president’s media discourse and political decisions. These ideas are not isolated positions, but an interconnected system built around a core conviction: that force creates legitimacy, and that law—whether international or domestic—loses its value when confronted with the logic of domination.

At the heart of this worldview lies a discourse portraying the United States as engaged in an existential war against what Trump broadly labels the “global radical left,” a vague category that effectively encompasses anyone opposing his policies. In this “imagined battle,” the president relies on fear-mongering and displays of power as tools deemed more effective than negotiation or diplomacy. Reich argues that, within this vision, the sole metric of success is the performance of the U.S. stock market, to which national well-being and international standing are reductively confined.

This logic, Reich warns, opens the door to practices that transcend politics in its conventional sense. The personal enrichment of Trump and his inner circle is implicitly or explicitly framed as a requirement of victory in the “war.” This justification expands to include lying, concealment, and even the unlawful use of force, all portrayed as necessities imposed by an existential struggle. Ultimately, this system culminates in a self-image of an invincible leader, creating a closed loop within the American administration that rejects criticism and permeates every level of decision-making and discourse.

Reich insists that these ideas do not amount to a doctrine or a coherent set of principles, but rather resemble “primitive, instinctive fits of rage.” He maintains that Trump “is not rational,” and that those around him are aware of this, even as they attempt to cloak his behavior in a veneer of rationality. This contradiction, he argues, explains why many find it difficult to believe that a U.S. president could genuinely adhere to such notions—or surround himself with circles that enthusiastically embrace them. Yet, as Reich bluntly states, “he believes in them, and they do too.”

From this perspective, Reich sharply criticizes media attempts to treat Trump’s policies as susceptible to exposure through contradictions or hypocrisy. Such efforts, he argues, are futile, because these policies lack any foundation of consistency or truth to begin with. As a result, it becomes impossible to draw a “big picture” of America and the world under his rule; there is nothing to depict except a “malignant, impulsive, and absolute ego.”

In assessing a full year of governance, Reich links the unleashing of violence on American streets with the escalation of hate-filled rhetoric toward Latin American countries and others, arguing that both stem from the same impulse: the projection of the president’s personal power. He therefore favors a psychological lens in analyzing Trump’s policies, identifying the primary driver as an unrelenting pursuit of greater power and greater wealth. In this context, he cites Trump’s posting of an image on social media referring to himself as the “acting president of Venezuela,” a symbolic gesture revealing a conflation of self and authority that transcends political norms.

From this diagnosis, Reich concludes that the very notion of “policy,” understood as thought and strategy, loses meaning under Trump’s rule. There is no domestic or foreign policy in the traditional sense, only pure narcissistic practice, sustained by a surrounding circle of sycophants seeking to advance their extremist agendas by manipulating the president’s impulses.

This analysis paves the way for a broader examination of a shift within American doctrine itself. As the first year of the second term concludes, sociologist Lahcen Yedroudj warns, in a statement to Elayem News, that concerns are resurfacing with renewed intensity—not merely about day-to-day policies, but about a fundamental transformation in the foundations of traditional American doctrine. Trump’s return to power, he argues, has accelerated the United States’ entry into a new phase in which the tools of hegemony are being reengineered, from direct intervention to the imposition of dependency through hybrid economic, legal, and military mechanisms, within the framework of so-called “American exceptionalism.”

Extending the psychological analysis, Yedroudj characterizes Trump’s behavior through the lens of “malignant narcissism,” combining grandiosity with antisocial conduct—traits historically associated with authoritarian figures. While such a diagnosis remains controversial, it underscores the broader anxiety over the impact of such a personality on political culture and democratic norms.

At the institutional level, Yedroudj highlights a systematic approach adopted by the administration to neutralize any opposing voice, whether within government or across what is commonly referred to as the deep state. The dismissal of former FBI Director James Comey over his role in the “Russiagate” investigation sent a clear warning to oversight institutions. Officials such as Alexander Vindman and dozens of election administrators were subjected to punishment and threats for defending democratic integrity or challenging the president’s narrative.

This approach did not stop at domestic boundaries. The imposition of sanctions on judges and prosecutors at the International Criminal Court, in response to investigations into war crimes in Gaza, represents, according to Yedrouj, a dangerous precedent. Economic sanctions were transformed into tools of pressure against an independent international judiciary, in a flagrant challenge to the principle of the rule of law.

In light of this, Yedroudj describes U.S. interventionism under Trump as more hybrid and more aggressive, blending military threats with economic warfare, targeted sanctions, and unconventional security operations. The rhetoric of “you are either with us or against us” has forcefully returned, rendering the sovereignty of other states—particularly in the Western Hemisphere—negotiable. Escalations against Iran and Cuba, along with pressure on Colombia, reveal a clear pattern of “coercion-driven will imposition,” while talk of “policing operations” against foreign leaders such as Nicolás Maduro further erodes diplomatic and legal norms.

Yedroudj concludes that what the world is witnessing is not a fleeting stylistic deviation, but a profound transformation of American doctrine toward an unrestrained hegemony liberated from the constraints of international law and traditional political ethics. A hegemony that relies on raw force, economic blackmail, institutional neutralization, and the suppression of all opposition—even among allies. Echoing Noam Chomsky’s assertion that “the United States loves democracy only when voters choose the candidate Washington approves of; otherwise, it is a rogue state,” he argues that the Trump era embodies this idea in its harshest form, threatening global stability and the very principles the United States once claimed to uphold.

— 𝐄𝐍𝐃 —

📡🌍 | 𝓐𝓫𝓸𝓾𝓽 𝓓𝔃𝓪𝓲𝓻 𝓣𝓾𝓫𝓮 𝓜𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪 𝓖𝓻𝓸𝓾𝓹 | 🌍📡
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
📰 𝓓𝔃𝓪𝓲𝓻 𝓣𝓾𝓫𝓮 𝓲𝓼 𝓪 𝓽𝓻𝓪𝓲𝓵𝓫𝓵𝓪𝔃𝓮𝓻 𝓲𝓷 𝓐𝓵𝓰𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷 𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓵 𝓳𝓸𝓾𝓻𝓷𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓼𝓶, 𝓭𝓮𝓵𝓲𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓱𝓲𝓰𝓱-𝓺𝓾𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓽𝔂 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓷𝓽 𝓲𝓷 𝓐𝓻𝓪𝓫𝓲𝓬, 𝓕𝓻𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓱, 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓔𝓷𝓰𝓵𝓲𝓼𝓱. 𝓦𝓲𝓽𝓱 𝓶𝓸𝓻𝓮 𝓽𝓱𝓪𝓷 📈 500,000 𝓭𝓪𝓲𝓵𝔂 𝓬𝓵𝓲𝓬𝓴𝓼, 𝓲𝓽 𝓻𝓪𝓷𝓴𝓼 𝓪𝓶𝓸𝓷𝓰 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓶𝓸𝓼𝓽 𝓲𝓷𝓯𝓵𝓾𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓪𝓵 𝓶𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪 𝓹𝓵𝓪𝓽𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓶𝓼 𝓲𝓷 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓾𝓷𝓽𝓻𝔂.

🏆 𝓐𝔀𝓪𝓻𝓭𝓮𝓭 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓟𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓷𝓽 𝓸𝓯 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓡𝓮𝓹𝓾𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓬’𝓼 𝓟𝓻𝓲𝔃𝓮 𝓯𝓸𝓻 𝓟𝓻𝓸𝓯𝓮𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓪𝓵 𝓙𝓸𝓾𝓻𝓷𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓼𝓽 𝓲𝓷 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓵𝓮𝓬𝓽𝓻𝓸𝓷𝓲𝓬 𝓟𝓻𝓮𝓼𝓼 𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓰𝓸𝓻𝔂 (🗓 𝓞𝓬𝓽𝓸𝓫𝓮𝓻 22, 2022), 𝓓𝔃𝓪𝓲𝓻 𝓣𝓾𝓫𝓮 𝓲𝓼 𝔀𝓲𝓭𝓮𝓵𝔂 𝓻𝓮𝓬𝓸𝓰𝓷𝓲𝔃𝓮𝓭 𝓯𝓸𝓻 𝓲𝓽𝓼 𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓵 𝓮𝔁𝓬𝓮𝓵𝓵𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓲𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓰𝓻𝓲𝓽𝔂.

📱 𝓜𝓪𝓼𝓼𝓲𝓿𝓮 𝓓𝓲𝓰𝓲𝓽𝓪𝓵 𝓡𝓮𝓪𝓬𝓱:
🔴 600,000+ 𝓨𝓸𝓾𝓣𝓾𝓫𝓮 𝓼𝓾𝓫𝓼𝓬𝓻𝓲𝓫𝓮𝓻𝓼
🔵 6 𝓶𝓲𝓵𝓵𝓲𝓸𝓷+ 𝓯𝓸𝓵𝓵𝓸𝔀𝓮𝓻𝓼 𝓪𝓬𝓻𝓸𝓼𝓼 𝓕𝓪𝓬𝓮𝓫𝓸𝓸𝓴 𝓹𝓪𝓰𝓮𝓼
📸 70,000+ 𝓘𝓷𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓰𝓻𝓪𝓶 𝓯𝓸𝓵𝓵𝓸𝔀𝓮𝓻𝓼

🎥 𝓞𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓯𝓻𝓸𝓶 𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓽𝓮-𝓸𝓯-𝓽𝓱𝓮-𝓪𝓻𝓽 𝓼𝓽𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓸𝓼, 𝓓𝔃𝓪𝓲𝓻 𝓣𝓾𝓫𝓮 𝓫𝓻𝓸𝓪𝓭𝓬𝓪𝓼𝓽𝓼 𝓻𝓲𝓬𝓱 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓭𝓲𝓿𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓮 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓰𝓻𝓪𝓶𝓶𝓲𝓷𝓰, 𝓲𝓷𝓬𝓵𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓷𝓰:
🗞 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼 | ⚽ 𝓢𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓼 | 🎭 𝓔𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓪𝓲𝓷𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽 | 🕌 𝓡𝓮𝓵𝓲𝓰𝓲𝓸𝓷 | 🎨 𝓒𝓾𝓵𝓽𝓾𝓻𝓮

🗣️ 𝓕𝓮𝓪𝓽𝓾𝓻𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓲𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓪𝓬𝓽𝓲𝓿𝓮 𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴 𝓼𝓱𝓸𝔀𝓼 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓮𝔁𝓬𝓵𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓿𝓮 𝓲𝓷𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓼 𝔀𝓲𝓽𝓱 𝓹𝓻𝓸𝓶𝓲𝓷𝓮𝓷𝓽 𝓯𝓲𝓰𝓾𝓻𝓮𝓼 𝓯𝓻𝓸𝓶 𝓹𝓸𝓵𝓲𝓽𝓲𝓬𝓼, 𝓫𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓷𝓮𝓼𝓼, 𝓪𝓻𝓽𝓼, 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓶𝓸𝓻𝓮, 𝓓𝔃𝓪𝓲𝓻 𝓣𝓾𝓫𝓮 𝓼𝓮𝓻𝓿𝓮𝓼 𝓪𝓼 𝓪 𝓴𝓮𝔂 𝓹𝓵𝓪𝓽𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓶 𝓯𝓸𝓻 𝓹𝓾𝓫𝓵𝓲𝓬 𝓭𝓲𝓼𝓬𝓸𝓾𝓻𝓼𝓮 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓬𝓲𝓿𝓲𝓬 𝓮𝓷𝓰𝓪𝓰𝓮𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽.

📰 𝓘𝓽𝓼 𝓹𝓻𝓲𝓷𝓽 𝓼𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓽𝓼 𝓭𝓪𝓲𝓵𝔂, “𝓓𝔃𝓪𝓲𝓻 𝓢𝓹𝓸𝓻𝓽,” 𝓮𝓷𝓳𝓸𝔂𝓼 𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓻 50,000 𝓭𝓪𝓲𝓵𝔂 𝓭𝓸𝔀𝓷𝓵𝓸𝓪𝓭𝓼 𝓿𝓲𝓪 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓸𝓯𝓯𝓲𝓬𝓲𝓪𝓵 𝔀𝓮𝓫𝓼𝓲𝓽𝓮—𝓯𝓾𝓻𝓽𝓱𝓮𝓻 𝓬𝓮𝓶𝓮𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓹𝓵𝓪𝓽𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓶’𝓼 𝓶𝓾𝓵𝓽𝓲𝓶𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪 𝓵𝓮𝓪𝓭𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓱𝓲𝓹.

🎖️ 𝓗𝓸𝓷𝓸𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝔀𝓲𝓽𝓱 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓜𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪 𝓛𝓮𝓪𝓭𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓱𝓲𝓹 𝓐𝔀𝓪𝓻𝓭 𝓫𝔂 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓯𝓸𝓻𝓶𝓮𝓻 𝓜𝓲𝓷𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓻 𝓸𝓯 𝓒𝓸𝓶𝓶𝓾𝓷𝓲𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷, 𝓜𝓸𝓱𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓭 𝓛𝓪â𝓰𝓪𝓫, 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓬𝓮𝓵𝓮𝓫𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓪𝓽 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓗𝓲𝓵𝓪𝓵𝓼 𝓸𝓯 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓣𝓮𝓵𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓼𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓪𝔀𝓪𝓻𝓭𝓼, 𝓓𝔃𝓪𝓲𝓻 𝓣𝓾𝓫𝓮 𝓬𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓲𝓷𝓾𝓮𝓼 𝓽𝓸 𝓵𝓮𝓪𝓭 𝔀𝓲𝓽𝓱 𝓲𝓷𝓷𝓸𝓿𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷, 𝓲𝓷𝓯𝓵𝓾𝓮𝓷𝓬𝓮, 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓲𝓶𝓹𝓪𝓬𝓽.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
🌐 𝓢𝓽𝓪𝔂 𝓒𝓸𝓷𝓷𝓮𝓬𝓽𝓮𝓭:
🔗 𝓦𝓮𝓫𝓼𝓲𝓽𝓮: www.dzair-tube.dz
🔗 𝓔𝓷𝓰𝓵𝓲𝓼𝓱: www.dzair-tube.dz/en
📲 𝓕𝓸𝓵𝓵𝓸𝔀 𝓾𝓼 𝓸𝓷 𝓕𝓪𝓬𝓮𝓫𝓸𝓸𝓴 | 𝓘𝓷𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓰𝓻𝓪𝓶 | 𝓨𝓸𝓾𝓣𝓾𝓫𝓮
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━