Washington DC [US] : With less than a month remaining for the completion of the first year of his second term, ‘Tariffs, Trade, and Tantrums’ aptly sums up the 47th President of the United States’ approach to governance, an approach that continues to take him to places few could have ever anticipated.
Donald Trump’s presidency has been a whirlwind, as he took office at the White House for the second time, ruling the country in an “unpresidential manner”, with some experts describing it as a “cowboy diplomatic style”, with three years still left in his bag.
Breaking protocol, legally and sometimes leading him to the courts, the 47th President guided the White House through a lens of high-stakes deals, whether business, ceasefires, or punitive tariffs.
His second administration’s governance model has become unmistakably clear, with experts noting that Trump has chosen speed over process, pressure over persuasion, and deals over doctrine.
From aggressive tariffs and hardline immigration enforcement to transactional diplomacy and an expanding assertion of presidential power, the past year has also redefined how America engages with itself and the world, with experts arguing that while the United States remains indispensable, its credibility, consistency, and leadership optics have taken measurable hits under Trump despite his portraying himself as “The Peace President”.
Foreign Affairs Expert Robinder Sachdev underscores the structural shift, characterising Trump’s first year of his second term as high-impact, high-speed, and disruptive, driven by preparation, loyalist governance, and an unprecedented use of executive authority.
Meanwhile, West Asia Strategist Waiel Awwad observes that this current administration has operated more as a “bullying” force, creating a landscape filled with both “areas of success and negative feedback”, blurring the lines between a strategic partner and a trade adversary into a single, transactional reality.
Setting the tone for what follows, the first year of Trump’s second term can be broadly assessed across six defining pillars, which show how his ‘America First’ policy has moved from a rally cry to a disruptive global reality with tariffs as statecraft, immigration as enforcement theatre, lingering controversies like the Epstein files, ambitious but fragile claims as the “Peace President”, transactional diplomacy as foreign policy, particularly with India, and the broader reshaping of a multipolar world order amid America’s assertive–yet increasingly contested, global role, illustrating how disruption has become one of the administration’s central operating principles.
For Trump, tariffs have been the defining instrument of his second-term statecraft. Rolled out rapidly and often arbitrarily, they have been positioned as a cure-all for trade imbalances, fiscal deficits, and even geopolitical conflicts.
According to Sachdev, tariffs served four clear objectives: correcting perceived historical unfairness, generating revenue, cushioning domestic political constituencies, and forcing foreign investment into the United States.
He explained that the move was deliberate rather than accidental, noting that the strategy has produced tangible outcomes for the US that could benefit it in the long run.
“He had three or four objectives in mind with regard to tariffs. One is that he had a lifelong belief that other nations have taken unfair advantage of America… Second is his one global defining mark this year, which was the money that they would collect. It was positioned that tariffs will bring money into the US government treasury,” Sachdev, author of Trumpotopia, said.
He also noted that the US President began “liking” tariffs after he realised that he could leverage them as a tool for his ‘peace diplomacy’, one of the images that Trump has been portraying since his inauguration.
“Third, they had money; some money will be given to the industry, which has been affected, which is a political dole-out. Lastly, he would compel other countries to invest in America… In totality, he has succeeded in some of it,” Sachdev said.
“Trump started liking tariffs even more when he realised that by making threats of tariffs, he can bring about peace,” he added, citing claims related to India-Pakistan and Thailand-Cambodia, which, however, remain deeply contested.
Investment announcements from the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Gulf states and others–collectively running into USD 9.6 trillion according to the White House–have validated Trump’s coercive economic model, at least on paper, despite him claiming that the US had secured around or even more than USD 20 trillion in investment this year.
Yet critics point out that the approach has also alienated partners.
Awwad notes that even Trump has acknowledged losing ground, conceding that tariffs pushed India closer to China and Russia. More controversially, tariffs have also evolved into a diplomatic weapon.
“He acknowledged that he lost India to China and Russia because of his tariff imposed on India. So I think that harsh measure he’s been trying to give does not give good leadership,” Awwad stated.
“Putting a tariff on countries, on the enemies and on the partners of the United States, showed very clearly that the US, under his administration, has been bullying more of a cowboy diplomatic style,” he added.
If tariffs defined Trump’s foreign engagement, immigration enforcement defined his approach to the domestic agenda, which has been one of the most significant issues he has addressed during his presidential campaign.
Immigration enforcement defined domestic policy, executed with theatrical aggression that fulfilled campaign pledges but sparked widespread unrest.
The administration has pursued highly visible actions–raids, mass arrests, deportation targets, and high-profile Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations–designed to project control and deterrence.
Sachdev characterises the approach as both performative and policy-driven.
“When initially in ICE, they were rounding up people and all… Videos were made, and the videos were circulated inside America itself, within the MAGA,” the foreign affairs expert said.
“They did to make it visible. They ordered that all the agents who go to arrest any immigrant should go in special jackets with big ICE letters on the back and should have a minimum of five cars with sirens blaring to create the element that he’s taking tough action and also to drive fear into the minds of illegal immigrants,” he added.
Daily arrest targets and aggressive enforcement have pushed the issue into courts nationwide, with legal challenges mounting across immigration, citizenship, and federal authority.
This may be due to Trump’s ambitious enforcement agenda, which aims to carry out one million deportations in the first year of his second term. To achieve this, his Deputy Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller, has advocated scaling operations to approximately 3,000 immigration arrests per day.
The societal impact has been polarising, as Sachdev noted that the traditional American “melting pot” has been replaced by what he describes as a “boxing ring”.
“Fundamentally, American culture, the mindset of Americans, used to be known as a melting pot… [But], unfortunately, what has happened in America now has become a boxing ring. That is, there are two sets of people. Both fear each other very much. The MAGA fear the liberals very much, and the liberals fear the MAGA very much,” he said.
Meanwhile, Awwad warns of growing public unease among the general American public, arguing that the social fallout may outweigh political gains, noting concerns over healthcare access, crime, and the perception that tax dollars are being diverted abroad while domestic needs go unmet.
“America is heading for a civil war under his leadership rather than stabilisation. What can trigger this is that people in the United States have lost their health care… The military is spending more rather than doing anything for the public. So the public resentment has been increasing,” he stated.
Trump’s hardline posture towards immigration did not end there. In September, the US President turned the H-1B visa programme into a key lever for what can be seen as curbing skilled immigration, despite his claim that it was intended to keep American jobs for American workers.
The proclamation mandates a steep USD 100,000 fee for all new H-1B visa applications, a requirement that applies to individuals and companies entering the H-1B lottery or filing fresh petitions.
The proclamation effectively raises the cost of accessing the programme that permits U.S. employers to temporarily hire highly skilled foreign nationals in speciality occupations that require at least a bachelor’s degree.
During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly said that he would release the documents related to the convicted sex offender and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, which consisted of lists of his associates and clients as well as court documents related to his convictions.
This call by Trump amplified with the MAGA crowd, which had also called for exposing the elite paedophile ring, appealing to conspiracy-minded supporters.
However, the issue backfired on him ‘spectacularly’. His administration initially resisted or delayed the full release, which was carried out by Trump’s loyalists, who had formed his cabinet.
His cabinet appointments, which prioritised loyalty over experience, a lesson he learnt from resistance during his first term, led to delays in the release of the Epstein files, which also resulted in a lot of backlash from the MAGA crowd.
US Attorney General Pam Bondi, one of Trump’s loyalists, was at the receiving end of the heated backlash and scrutiny over the US Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files.
This included a joint memo from the US Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that stated that there is no “client list” and reaffirmed that Epstein died by suicide in 2019.
“The cabinet that he appointed have been absolutely, totally his loyalists… In the first administration, traditional Republicans were able to convince him to hire some traditional conservatives who kind of opposed him for many of his policies,” Sachdev stated.
This had led to a congressional mandate, the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which called for the DOJ to release all classified documents related to Epstein.
And in December, hundreds of thousands of documents were released, which highlighted a ‘past friendship’ between the convicted sex offender and the US President.
However, no criminal wrongdoing was alleged against Trump. Still, revelations fuelled scrutiny from the media and the MAGA crowd, which was partly based on frustration over a perceived cover-up.
Trump campaigned and governed as a “peace president”, repeatedly projecting himself as a dealmaker brokering truces through pressure while avoiding new wars–but sustainability proved elusive.
From ceasefire claims to mediation assertions, his administration has framed coercion as a form of conflict resolution.
Tariffs, sanctions, and threats have been presented as tools to compel negotiations rather than as instruments of traditional diplomacy.
“Trump started liking tariffs even more when he realised that by threatening tariffs, he could bring about peace,” Sachdev stated, who captured this mindset.
However, the durability of peace achieved through economic intimidation is questioned, with the warning that such outcomes may be temporary and transactional rather than structural.
Complexities persisted, with ceasefires in Gaza limping amid ongoing actions and redevelopment hurdles, and many other conflicts, such as the India-Pakistan and Thailand-Cambodia conflicts, facing rebuffs or reversions, as Trump lacked the historical depth to understand the ground reality of the matter.
“This is not a successful story. The reason behind this is that President Trump lacks the historical background of any significant conflict; therefore, you cannot impose peace by force. There’s no way any country can accept these things because there is history behind them, and you cannot surpass the just justification of occupation or even annexation of territories or the bomb because you wanted to please your supplier,” Awwad stated.
One of the most significant blots on Trump’s “Peace President” copybook has to be the dramatic falter to “stop” the Russia-Ukraine war, currently in its fourth year.
Trump, during his election campaign, had vowed to end the war, which he had repeatedly described as “Biden’s War”, and further asserted that if he were in power, Moscow could have never invaded Ukraine.
The US President, this time around, wasn’t able to use his ‘tariffs’ antiques and had to resort to direct diplomatic channels and negotiations with both Kyiv and Moscow to find a solution.
A failed Alaska summit in August with Russian President Putin had stalled progress. Still, a proposed 20-point peace plan, which Russia had rejected on the grounds of territorial concessions, had instilled a fragile hope.
And now, Trump, after he meets with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, said that he has “no deadline” for a peace deal in the matter.
Despite his efforts to reach a sustainable solution to many conflicts, Trump, in some contexts, has surely lost the plot as the “peace president”.
Military strikes on Iran and alleged cartel boats from Venezuela have starkly contradicted this narrative, portraying a more hawkish stance that can be labelled as hypocritical.
Trump’s first year of his second term can be described as a study in transactional confusion regarding relations with India, which have oscillated from early warmth to strain, marked by heavy tariffs and a perceived pivot toward Pakistan.
Despite the ‘brotherly’ rhetoric between the US President and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who was among the first few world leaders to visit the White House within one month of Trump’s inauguration, Washington has, for the past year, been ‘coming hard’ on New Delhi.
A 50 per cent tariff on Indian exports to the US, Trump’s claims of mediation with Pakistan during the May escalation following Operation Sindoor, and the cancellation of the US President’s visit to India for the Quad Leaders’ Summit–while Pakistan gained favour through strategic offers and flattery–collectively put strain on the ties.
Awwad argues that New Delhi’s refusal to accept third-party mediation and its insistence on safeguarding food, energy, and strategic autonomy clashed with Trump’s pressure-first approach.
“The [Indian] government cannot succumb to the pressures or get into those sectors, which are affecting the food security, oil security. Issues of Indian national interest are of prime importance for the Indian government. I think [Trump] is yet to understand that calculation,” Awwad noted.
Meanwhile, Sachdev added that the imposition of additional tariffs was a turning point. Once the trade deals are sorted out, “it will be a new normal in America-India relations.”
However, Trump had expressed regret over “losing India” to the influence of China and Russia, with Awwad noting that “America needs India more than India needs America. That’s for sure.”
While ties have not broken, both experts agree that India is “recalibrating”, moving toward a “new normal” that hedges US engagement with stronger multipolar partnerships.
Trump’s assertive style hastened a multipolar shift, eroding trust while countries diversified their alliances as the global perception of the US as the “supreme leader” has measurably perished.
The world is no longer waiting for American leadership; it is learning to work around it. The rise of multilateral forums such as BRICS and the G20 as alternative power centres indicates that nations are seeking a buffer against a White House that treats international relations as a gamble, with Trump at the helm, wielding the stick without offering the carrot.
“Internationally, his image is tarnished, and America got more isolated. Rather than America being the supreme leader, people started losing faith in the United States because of his leadership because of his mismanagement,” Awwad asserted.
As the administration enters its second year, the “New World Order” is one in which the United States remains a powerful player but no longer holds the undisputed remote control over global affairs.
However, with rising giants such as China and looming security concerns in Europe, Trump and the US remain relevant as a countermeasure.
“America will stay, definitely. But America has to recognise, whether under his leadership or any other leadership, that America is no more the supreme superpower. There is a multipolar world, and a new world order has to be reshaped, and there will be voices to be heard,” Awwad noted.
One year into Donald Trump’s second term, the scorecard is unmistakably mixed–yet profoundly consequential.
The administration has moved with unprecedented speed, delivering policy shocks and leverage that few predecessors could match.
Tariffs have reshaped global trade flows, immigration enforcement has been unrelenting, and transactional diplomacy has extracted concessions from allies and adversaries alike.
In these arenas, Trump has kept some of his promises and wielded power decisively. But the costs are mounting: eroded predictability, strained international trust, and a perceptible erosion of long-term goodwill.
Partners feel bullied, rivals emboldened, and even domestic supporters grapple with the fallout of unyielding tactics.
But America remains indispensable–no alternative superpower has emerged–but its leadership now carries the unmistakable scent of isolation.
As Trump enters the second year of his second term, the defining question is no longer about disruption but the durability of his administration, policies, and promises as the world adjusts to the Trumpian world order. (ANI)
