To understand Donald Trump

By: Ricardo Israel - 18/03/2025

Donald Trump returned to power and in just over a month, he not only imposed a conversation on relevant issues in the United States but around the world. He has been successful in business, on television, and as a politician. He isn't the world's best negotiator, but he didn't come to the presidency poorly prepared, compared to some others who have governed in the last half-century, and with a knowledge of the world that was perhaps slightly above average, although for business reasons rather than political ones.

The United States changed with its emergence almost a decade ago, descending the steps of its New York building, as it did, fighting against it, action and reaction, which left deep marks. It's happening now in the world, now more than in its previous administration. It has a political identity, but prefers to speak daily to its electoral base with content that isn't perceived as doctrinaire.

Despite the above, it's not easy to write about him. What complicates trying to understand what he does and why he does it is that everyone believes they have an opinion, and it's not just any opinion, but a polarized and very passionate one. You either love him or hate him, and half measures are not acceptable. Furthermore, as a result of social media, it's enough to read a few lines on a cell phone for many to consider that enough. This is what has accompanied me in the US since I settled here in 2019. I've lived here before and taught both politics and the Constitution of this country at its universities, but nothing prepared me for what I found this time, especially because of the passion surrounding it, so much so that on several occasions I've preferred to keep my opinion to myself, so fierce were the discussions I witnessed.

And I lived through the dictatorship in Pinochet's Chile, but I don't remember having kept quiet as many times as I have these past few years. It seems ridiculous and exaggerated, but it isn't. Maybe I've gotten old. Besides, in the US, my first disillusionment was with what I thought were the best media outlets in the world. However, I found them full of bias, so I quickly lost trust in them, and when that happens, it's forever. The good news is that distrust of what I perceived as fake news forced me to seek out information for myself, and that has enriched me.

In any case, I find it hard to understand the virulence, even the violent attitudes I've encountered, here and elsewhere, especially when they come from people close to me, whom I supposedly thought I knew better. Apparently, they accept no other attitude than agreeing with them; such are the strong reactions they provoke, a personal example of the global decline of freedom of expression and tolerance.

It's time to make it clear that, had I been able to vote, I wouldn't have voted for him in 2020 or 2024, nor for the Democrats, and I would have surely sought a third candidate, even though there was no chance of winning. But I mention this because it's unknown, especially abroad, that there are more than two candidates in presidential elections.

The context in which Trump governs and which he has influenced is a true paradigm shift, both in the US and around the world. Perhaps it will become clearer to everyone when this second term ends that what we are witnessing is the end of the agreements the world reached or that were imposed by the victors of World War II, both politically and economically. Politically, it is the end, or at least a profound reform, of the Atlantic Alliance as well as of multilateralism and the rules that accompanied that order. His approach is not only MAGA (Make America Great Again) via America First, but also a conception of the US as a historical construct that is much more than a nation-state, since Trump seems to conceive it as a true civilization-state, that is, one that lacks their years of history, closer to what India and China (perhaps also Russia) have been, although, in his view, with more power than the aforementioned. What's new is that Trump not only attacks his opponents, but also, and sometimes, first and foremost, attacks his friends and neighbors.

Behind this lies the idea that the US must regain its lost position as an undisputed power, just as Trump adds his personal idea that the rest of the world is taking advantage of his country's generosity, for which, incidentally, insufficient evidence has been provided.

The Monroe Doctrine is being revived, this time against China, which it sees as its only rival. Rather than being solely a trade war, economically, it is intertwined with the decision to use US power to simultaneously address drug and illegal immigration issues. This is also present in the issue of tariffs, where the real goal is to force investment and companies to produce within its territory. Indeed, there is an approach in the 21st century that is reminiscent of the mercantilism that emerged between the 16th and 18th centuries.

Today, tariffs also seem to be a matter of demanding equal treatment, and not subsidizing those who are believed to have abused, for example, the Europeans, by burdening the US with the cost of their security. This mix of elements confuses and causes us to lose sight of what Washington wants to achieve. This is what happens with tariffs when they are used as instruments, whether of pressure or negotiation. Similarly, it is present in the case of Ukraine, where the idea of rare metals, if one looks at it closely, is also an element that can greatly contribute to ensuring that Ukraine will not be invaded again by the Russians. Although it is unknown whether Ukrainian geology contains the expected amount, there is no doubt that the magnitude of the investment and the use of US legislation ties the US in for at least a generation, which would provide many more guarantees than the declarations of European leaders, several of whom are on their way out of power, starting with Macron.

Incidentally, the tariff issue creates a conflict with supply chains that, according to Trump, in his view, COVID-19 pandemic permitting, would currently favor China. However, it is such an important issue for him that only a recession would change his mind, especially if he faces midterm elections at the end of next year. As with everything related to trade and the economy, he is absolutely convinced that US power depends largely on the health of the dollar, which is why he has made it his duty to protect it at all costs.

He is accompanied by guiding ideas, such as that peace is a consequence of power and that it must be used forcefully and without reservations, as well as that he is the providential person to pull the United States out of what he perceives as prostration and reposition it as the undisputed power, recovering lost respect and deterrence.

He doesn't believe in multilateralism, postulating that the US should preferably engage through bilateral relations, one-on-one, utilizing all the instruments at its disposal. Contrary to what is assumed, he has little faith in the use of military power to export institutions. Therefore, throughout his career, he has generally opposed interventions like the one in Iraq. He has repeatedly stated his pride in the fact that his previous administration freed the US from prolonged interventions and never led it into war. Although, of course, he constantly threatens to use force, but rather as a strategy to achieve an objective.

More than anything else, he doesn't want to be seen surrounded by losers, just as he believes it's his duty to be part of the cultural war against anything that smacks of wokism, whether national or international. He's all about America first, second, and third, which is why he provided leadership to the movement he found when running for president—that is, half of the country he led, even though he didn't create MAGA. History is now repeating itself internationally, as the ideas he represents existed before, especially in Europe, but rather on the fringes. And with the echo chamber that the US represents, it's transforming into a rising political alternative, helping to make the old distinction between right and left, which has been with us since the French Revolution, increasingly less important, in favor of globalists versus patriots.

He sees himself as a natural negotiator, so his book The Art of the Deal should be taken seriously and not joked about, given its importance in his decision-making process. However, personally, I am surprised that most of the arguments he uses in public debate are more political or geopolitical in nature than economic, especially given his studies and his business career.

Trump speaks his mind, rarely reads his speeches, and has an accessibility that is rare among politicians in large countries, especially when compared to Joe Biden's years in the White House. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, analysts have trouble interpreting him. His media appearances are frequent, and he also changes his mind, sometimes on the same day. Based on his appointments, it seems he doesn't hold grudges permanently, by the way, with the exception of some members of the Democratic Party. This will surely be evident in future investigations by the Department of Justice or the FBI, as he is interested in knowing the origin of the judicialization he has suffered—or rather, the persecution.

Although he has not been a militarist, it is evident that he has not been a pacifist either, but he would undoubtedly very much like to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, and I am convinced that what he is seeking today in Gaza and Ukraine is that Prize, since my impression is that he believes he deserved it for the 2020 Abraham Accords. That was the best of his first government, but unlike the other Nobel Prizes, this is by definition a political prize, in the sense that it is not awarded in Sweden, but by a commission appointed by the Parliament of Norway, where the political correlation of that country makes it extremely difficult for not only someone like him to receive it, but also, for example, a Catholic pontiff.

However, his own personal characteristics confuse those who assume he has sympathies and antipathies, and his objectives in Gaza and Ukraine are so clearly in mind that many may be surprised when, in order to achieve his goals, a likely scenario arises: he personally pressures Putin for peace in Ukraine and, in the case of Israel, for the creation of a Palestinian state with the Palestinian Authority as an interlocutor. If there's one thing Trump isn't, it's being a puppet, as his 2016 victory was falsely presented, with the "Russian plot," in which Putin "would have" put him in power.

Trump doesn't have a detailed plan for Gaza or Ukraine, but if he has an idea, sometimes a continuation of what happened during his previous administration, and if his interlocutors don't have one either, there's no doubt that this allows him to fill the void with his personal input, just as happened with Gaza when Netanyahu hadn't presented any proposal by the day after the fighting with Hamas, which made it possible for him to initiate direct dialogue with them.

On a general level, Trump, above all, expresses the end of the agreements and alliances that have prevailed since the end of World War II, as much a US creation as what we are now witnessing with tariffs. In this regard, the success of some of his proposals is due to the fact that those who oppose him do so, above all, emotionally, concerned more with the form than the substance. It also helps Trump that the magnitude of the change is not understood, and even more so, that people laugh at him or the proposal. Being a second government or the second stage of the same government, MAGA now appears to be guiding it, since this 47th administration would be the one where its legacy is built and where it arrives better prepared, for what it learned in the 45th government. Thus, more than a slogan, MAGA appears as the basis of a government that seeks to replace at the international level the multilateral agreements after the Second World War with direct negotiations, where the power of the United States is more noticeable, and at the internal level, the bureaucratic-regulatory state built from the government of Franklin Delano Roosevelt is being intervened, an opportunity that they want to take advantage of to loosen the moorings that American capitalism has in order to take off, and thus attract more investments.

Will he succeed? We don't know. Perhaps the Supreme Court will give him the green light instead of the red light to what he can do via executive orders, which in no way were created by him. Perhaps his project will be politically defeated or become unviable internationally. However, he has achieved a lot in a short time, as the speed with which he has attacked different fronts and the way he has monopolized the conversation, pushing many fences, both possible and probable, both internationally and nationally, has been surprising.

There's no doubt we could be experiencing a moment of paradigm shift, where the foundations of the liberal order built after the Second World War are being shaken. This is happening for the first time in eight decades, so it's understandable that it's not easily discernible, given that this order wasn't even questioned after the fall of the USSR, and although Russia sought a different path under Putin, several countries from the former Soviet orbit have joined that order, via Europe and NATO.

It's also a situation where the country making the change was precisely the one that created that system, although something as important as the profound reform or elimination of the symbol of that order, now much discredited, such as the UN, is still lacking. It's unclear whether Trump will have the time to undertake something of this nature. What's happening is confusing, since those making the changes from within government aren't necessarily fully aware of what's happening around them, as was the case with Lord North and the Industrial Revolution in England.

Furthermore, sometimes historical changes are made with mistaken ideas, as happened with the conquest of the world, where part of the territories were occupied by those who believed the earth was flat (well, it seems there are still many of those)

As far as Trump is concerned, there's no doubt it helps that there's so little interest in understanding what he's doing, as evidenced by the fact that few books have been published about his first administration, at least to try to understand more than judge his intentions. Furthermore, perhaps this would partially explain the failures of those who claim to be fighting him, since they miss the point, and end up fighting a real straw monkey.

In this regard, he can be criticized for various reasons, but establishing ethical distance leads to situations like what happened to Zelensky in the Oval Office of the White House, that is, a confrontation where his country was the most affected.

It also helps that he is underestimated, or that he is sometimes treated with the "moral superiority" he is sometimes regarded with, an attitude present on the right and left in Europe and Latin America, as well as in much of the international press, which seems to feel contempt for him.

And beware, if successful, these changes could last for decades. This isn't unusual. On the contrary, it's common for them to last 20 to 30 years in the US. This is aided by the age of the people who have taken up important positions in this 47th administration, who appear to be in their 40s. This could be a permanent legacy, along with the transformation that the Republican Party has undergone, now under his control, and where he has been joined by women and minorities in elected office. This makes it a much more diverse party today, and therefore closer to what the US is today than the Democratic Party itself, which is rife with confusion about what it should do and unclear how the opposition should operate.

In the end, to address these characters, their leadership and the processes of change that they bring with them, the strategy of generating fear is not very useful, and more useful is the wisdom of that Georgian proverb that says that lambs live in fear of the wolf, but the one who ends up eating them is the shepherd.

@israelzipper

Master's and PhD in Political Science (University of Essex), Bachelor of Law (University of Barcelona), Lawyer (University of Chile), former presidential candidate (Chile, 2013)

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».