Tag: donald-trump

Envisaging the likely scenarios post-hard right populism collapse in the West 

10.11.25

Dear Partners in Thought,

I took a writing break these past two months as covering the ceaseless Trump developments, which many do across the pond, was becoming very toxic as an endless act of democratic despair. I decided to take up my pen again after telling some of my Financial Times writer friends what I thought the post-Trump era could bring, a topic that we see starting being covered as the tide may have turned following recent elections in the US. In doing so, I will focus on rational developments, short of revolutions while assuming democracy would still endure in our old West. This topic may not relate only to the US but also to quite a few key European countries like Britain, France and even Germany.

The Trump era is one of an abandonment of traditional values and principles that made America since 1776 and a rise of a form of – so far – mild autocracy seen with the exercise of executive powers that even a Trump-friendly US Supreme Court starts reviewing and questioning (for example with the implementation of systemic tariffs). As I covered at length and well beyond trade, the Trump administration pursued unusual policies such as deploying troops in large Democrat-led cities, attacking leading universities that paradoxically have “made America great”, mass-deporting immigrants at a time when they are needed by the US economy, all while making elitism a bad word so as to please a voting base of often non-college educated which is  usually based in rural areas and states where the current Republican Party enjoys an already excessive representation set-up. Today Trump’s support stands at 37-39% after ten months. In Europe, populist parties lead the polls in Britain, Germany and France while at times disrupting the governmental process even if elections are not “planned” in the short term – for now. However, hard-right populists can win votes in responding to voters’ disappointment with the traditional parties by offering easy solutions to complex issues – their main strength – but they usually are ill-equipped to manage governments efficiently, often leading to the demise of coalitions in the short term, as recently seen in the Netherlands after only two years.     

While hard-right populists increasingly win, as many voters are disappointed by the slow pace and perceived mismanagement of key issues – like, indeed, immigration – by liberal democracy and their traditional parties, they are often now supported by ultra-wealthy business leaders as seen with the “Big Tech Bros” in the US with Trump. While they often change their previously liberal essence to gain favour from Trump and the like, these business types help form an unusual leadership set-up that combines extremist politics and business (in the case of tech, also fostered by social media platforms those leaders helped create). The rise of the mega-billionaires under the Trump era is also a reflection of the demise of traditional capitalism, when ultra-money has become a leading value or objective of a tiny few at the expense of many, including those voters who supported the Trump rise and populist parties aspiring to gain power (see Elon Musk and the AfD in Germany, also his “market”). Money has become an excessive feature of modern society even among those who seemed to care about the “people” when realising that even Nancy Pelosi and her husband made USD 130 million in stock profit since 1988 when she was a member and then leader of the House of Representatives, a key public role.

It would appear that Gen Z and many young voters are now shifting leftwards as seen during the recent US elections as well as many Hispanics and Black Americans who had supported Trump in the 2024 elections, the latter that had created an odd coalition with the disgruntled and vastly white nationalist MAGA base. It would also not be surprising for many in the MAGA base to desperately shift their disgruntled extremism from a hard-right stance to a hard-left one, all the more after they deeply suffer economically from Trump’s policies while seeing the clear rise of the mega-billionaires who also keep reducing staff and indeed their jobs as seen with Amazon. While the younger generations are shifting leftwards both in the US and Europe, also in rejection of Big Money and its impact on society, it is possible that disappointed hard-right voters keen on extremist societal approaches, could join them and help creating a new seismic political shift.    

Although it was not foreseen a few weeks ago, it is now possible that Trump could become a “lame duck” following the 2026 mid-terms if he keeps delivering his senseless policies with no sound advisory control from his top team that was clearly not selected for this role. While hard right nationalists are likely to fail while in power, it is not yet clear whether a soft version of socialism, as shown with a gifted and charismatic Mamdani even if in an admittedly differentiated New York City, or a harder-left version would prevail. It is possible that a younger and less civil Bernie Sanders might win the Presidency in 2028 if the Trump slide goes on or a more moderate and centrist Californian Gavin Newsom could prevail, also as he would fit the American political essence, as seen with the recent strong victories of the Democrats in his California as well as for the Virginia and New Jersey governorships. What is clear is that the Democrats will need to focus on issues of affordability and stay away from extreme cultural issues if they want to win in one and then three years. Europe, which is more extremist than America in nature (at least until the Trump era), may find it harder to find another centrist solution à la Macron to replace an eventually likely failing Nigel Farage or Marine Le Pen (Bardella) government if they were to happen – but future history will tell. At the same time, current and potential hard-left leaders do not seem today or in the near future likely inhabitants of Number Ten or the Elysée Palace. 

We also live in a different world, with a new and gradually changing order since 1945, which makes it crucial to think about its likely scenarios so that individuals and businesses can adjust best and keep thriving. For this there is a need to manage risks, old and new, while ensuring that rules are clear and ethics prevail from the boardroom to the family dining table.      

Warmest regards,

Serge

Understanding the key features and developments of our new world 

3.9.25

Dear Partners in Thought,

As I was taking a pause from writing on the rather toxic Trump 2.0 developments, one of my closest American friends told me I should write about the state of the world following seven months of Trump 2.0 for all parties involved. These past seven months have been hard to deal with for many, including myself, a Paris-born individual who grew up in unlimited admiration for America and sought to meet its “dream” in the 1980s to take himself away from a France he loved but found too rigid. While America was never perfect, the country projected values and principles that made one easily forget some of its less-appealing features. America led a so-called Free World where all in that group benefitted, including its leader, while the world gradually became a better place as those who suffered from the Cold War can testify. Globalisation, or “peace through trade”, became the norm while world wars were to be found in history books. The seismic change experienced today would deserve a long list of books to cover all of its features, something a short piece cannot do. However, a focus on defining and understanding the very key features and developments experienced since Trump 2.0 could be useful to foresee a new world in formation for all parties at stake, including Americans but also, given my roots, Europeans.

Trump 2.0 has rapidly become an expression of mild (so far) autocracy where an historical multitude of executive decisions have led the way for a team of “obedient first” Secretaries and White House advisers, often not competent for their roles, to manage the drive. This unusual approach quickly sounded un-American, though meeting little opposition from a business establishment fearing retaliation, while the opposition party seemed helpless – also due to the nature of its current leadership. Examples of policy mishandling over seven months have been akin to a flood, making it hard to follow the massive American downturn. The recent sackings of intelligence officials, leaving a void in challenging times, was startling, all the more so if replaced by incompetent individuals, as seems to be the norm across the Trump administration in key positions. Universities, like Harvard or Columbia, were attacked in a populist way and on strange rationales but mainly to please what is known as the MAGA base, which resents their societal disconnection and what is seen as the elite, often due to their lack of formal or advanced education. In now a classic populist move, illegal immigrants were then deported in drastic un-American ways to please Trump’s base (even if national identity preservation should be understood), while some segments of the economy like agriculture or food chains would suffer. The Supreme Court, with a Trump-leaning majority, seemed to support all these moves, while some courts and indeed courageous judges opposed the most drastic Trump administration decisions. America’s approach to foreign policy was a game-changing experience where allies were treated like foes and tariffs were used for political ends, not mentioning their likely adverse impact on US consumers. Trump 2.0 became a major change in the history of the world for all parties. 

It may be hard for the basic Trump voter to go beyond the sheer news impact of being tough to allies and foes alike or grasp the adverse effects of some policies like tariffs, all the more erratic in nature. Similarly, the sheer foreign policy impact and harm to core US interests may be hard to understand for many of them, so remote they may be from the world at large. So here are a few very key developments that should be noted and indeed explained to American voters, all the more so as they may eventually pay for many Trump 2.0 policies:

  1. Trump 2.0 and its treatment of longstanding allies (and indeed the ways used) has created a strong doubt about the Western world being able to “trust” America – as the Danes should feel after the Greenland never-ending episode. And while many Europeans were too reliant on America for their defence, thus also allowing it to cement its clear leadership, the new Trump 2.0 less-European focused approach, which is also becoming mercantile (“we will supply weapons to Kyiv from financial assistance provided by Europeans”), is worsening the spirit of a sound and highly successful post-WW2 partnership. The tariff war finally made clear that Europe was to be treated as any party would be, without any special difference. Trump’s foreign policy and its impact, well beyond a Lindbergh “America first” 1930s message, is a return to a McKinley approach of the 19th century, where isolationism and protectionism were the norms of the day. America is just another leading country.
  • One of the key developments of Trump 2.0’s foreign policy, which will be gradually felt, is the strengthening of arch-rival China, as many countries, feeling hurt by the new American approach, will seek closer trade ties with it, leading to broader foreign policy rapprochement. A hard-to-believe joint development was the harsh US focus on long-courted India and its doubling of tariffs to an incredible 50% (on the grounds that Mumbai was buying Russian oil, which many would naturally disagree with). It is clear that India will get closer to China as seen at the recent “new world order” meeting in Beijing. There seems to be no understanding of America’s own core interests in Washington, with an unquestionable support of Trump 2.0 by all branches of government. Another winner of Trump 2.0, to some extent, is Russia, this based on a strange historical personal relationship between the two leaders and Trump himself not wanting to realise early enough that he was artfully used by a strong-minded geopolitical leader who plays for time and will unlikely stop a terrible but now existential war in the heart of Europe without clear gains. 

The gradual disappearance of trust of Western allies in the US and the unwitting enabling of the rise of China while weakening American government efficiency are probably the two key developments the world will have to deal with in Trump 2.0 times, not to mention a never-ending war of attrition in Ukraine based on an existential quest. As a prelude of days to come, foreign tourism to the US has massively declined with Trump 2.0 with an estimated loss of USD 12.5bn for 2025, even if a transactional Trump 2.0 would argue that tariffs will more than make up for this loss, not minding the core message of this development. One can hope that mid-term elections in 2026 may change this poor course, but harm will have been done, and a sound course will be hard to restore, even if it should be pursued nonetheless.  

One of the few winners of this seismic change may be the geopolitical risk and risk intelligence consultancies as clients may grow due to the challenging times we know. As it is also a segment I feel very interested in, even if I am very demanding in terms of platform MO and overall quality, I should almost send a note of thanks to Karoline Leavitt, the young White House press secretary, but – as a good sense of humour is key in our harder times – I will not do so as I really find her too unpleasant and so representative of her boss.   

Warmest regards, 

Serge

The sad slide of America and its impact on the world 

17/6/25

Dear Partners in Thought,

Within nearly five months of Trump 2.0, we saw a deluge of executive orders often aggressively and erratically dealing with a wide number of issues at all levels, but going nowhere positively, while gradually destroying the core tissue of America and the world we knew.   

Trump 2.0 is not simply a political phase of public mismanagement or excessive policy making. It is the end of an era for America and the world. These unforeseen times – and indeed one man – have unleashed, however unwittingly, amazing developments such as the actual and attempted wide-scale assassinations of Democratic state representatives and their families in Minnesota as if all was now fair game for extremists. America is now sliding into autocracy, with the US ordering state national guards and even US Marines to deal with mostly pacific anti-deportation demonstrations, thus creating more violence as a result. The US executive style has now reached unseen lows, with descriptions of California Governor Newsome as “Newscum”, and the same for Fed Chairman Jerome Powell. And in the midst of such rapid democratic weakening, almost unnoticed substantial self-enrichment appears to be a new and acceptable presidential attribute. While what matters in Trump 2.0 is mainly the news impact and, it appears, Russian-style military parades, all these events slowly but surely throw America back to the late 1850s when a civil war was looming.    

Trump 2.0 and its quasi-1930s Lindbergh protectionism have also empowered many foreign leaders to adopt aggressive moves against their enemies, knowing that President Trump will not mind or will be too weak to react, thus making the world more dangerous and even nuclear confrontations more possible. We know that history is repeating itself and that many of us have no memories of WW2 or even the Cold War as more than 50 per cent of Americans today were not born in 1985. The degree of passivity about Trump 2.0 of many in America is still surprising, notably within the business community, though we see that this is likely changing as enough is indeed enough. 

The MAGA base, often but not always poorly (if at all) educated and living in often empty areas, naturally wants a king (hence the fair point with the No King demonstrations) as they look for quick executive decisions implemented without the often-slow pace and intricate process of liberal democratic governments. Populists the world over play on this colourful electoral selling of quick and simple change and anti-elite feeling, often taking advantage of the fact that democracies are slow-moving. In the case of America, the excesses of diversity or woke drives and substantial illegal immigration – two areas that are not “black and white” in essence as the US economy would agree on the latter – sent Trump back to the White House where he could be even more himself this time, mostly surrounded by obedient servants.

As belonging to an early Gaullist family, having worn a “Giscard at the top” tee-shirt on the Champs Elysées at age 14, and having been a member of the national youth team of Chirac’s neo-Gaullist RPR party under the helm of a then-young Sarkozy, I am no raving leftie. I am for law and order – though in their fair versions, unlike what we see across the pond today. I know what matters and the value of fairness and professionalism in politics, something which is missing in the American executive today, all while their voters will be the first ones to pay for the misdeeds we keep witnessing. It is hard to believe that one man, who is treating his country and the world as if it were an episode of The Apprentice, is behind all the chaos we see and we may pay for. Trump 2.0 will be a treasure for political writers for generations to come, assuming we still have a going world.  

As a French-born transatlantic European who enjoyed his visits at Yorktown, I feel we need to assist the Trump opposition while both traditional parties remake themselves as they badly need. We need the strong America we knew with its Western leadership, soft and real power, all based on values and principles that strengthened democracy globally. 

One thing is sure for the geopolitical risk thinker I am: America may have become a risk for many, including itself. Trump may also have unwittingly served the interests of some of the many rivals or competitors he naturally dislikes under the misguided and self-harming banner of his America First. 

Warmest regards,

Serge

About Trump’s unwitting impacts on world affairs and a great damage to America 

29.5.25

Dear Partners in Thought,  

Four months into Trump 2.0 one would be excused for taking a break in writing about the developments seen to date or even following the news given their level of toxicity. Trump 2.0 has changed America and the world we knew, all the more (but not only) in the West, in no time. Following the recent show biz-flavoured populist politician recipe of offering simple and hard solutions to complex issues to largely disgruntled or feeling-left-out core voters, Trump secured a second term that was an even stronger departure from his first one with the emphasis on quick action and obedience first through “doers” who would never have been seen in any presidential team in the past. In doing so, Trump destroyed both the reputation and standing of America in the world while weakening his own country and even his own voters at many levels in no time. 

The list of unbelievable negative impacts is as long as the number of executive decisions taken in no time – a huge record in US presidential history – and would need a long book to cover them. I feel sad to have been right early on about many of these decisions and their impact at the economic, social and diplomatic levels for America, its traditional allies and the world. Today I would like to cover two developments that stress the clear weaknesses of Trump’s erratic and negative grasp of international affairs while stressing the one unbelievable case of hurting America’s core interests at their very heart. 

Trump lost it when attacking Canada and wanting to make it a 51st state, this along with wanting to seize – or even invade – Greenland while renaming the Gulf of Mexico (incidentally attacking later the Associated Press on the matter) or being overly friendly with an imperialistic Putin (even if, like with tariffs, he goes back and forth on his legendary love for the new tsar). By following this ill-fated route, Trump created an impact that was very bad in terms of America’s standing while quickly clarifying how bad his new administration could be. In some ways, while many see him as a Russian agent for many reasons, he unwittingly behaved as a liberal democracy one by ensuring the victory that was not so clear pre-Trump 2.0 of the candidacies or the parties of Mark Carney in Canada, Anthony Albanese in Australia, Nicusor Dan in Romania and even Edi Rama in Albania – all liberal democrats of various flavours and for sure not populist leaders – this at a time when their victories were far from assured. Trump made them win as a reaction to his own world-changing policies. In some ways, Trump can also be seen as a European agent as his nasty tirades made European leaders wake up (Germany and Merz being a case in point) as to the necessity of strengthening their own defence and not just relying on the American big brother, even if it made sense at many levels for all parties in a different time. It is clear that elections, and indeed history, are often shaped by near-term events and feelings. It is not certain that Marine Le Pen, if able to run, or her ill-equipped junior Jordan Bardella could not win in France in 2027 or that Nigel Farage could not eventually win in Britain due to the tiredness of traditional parties and their electorates. And finally, Trump unwittingly set the path for a closer economic rapprochement between Europe and China, the latter that needs globalisation to exist. The problem with Trump and his team is that the focus is on the “moment” or the news of the very day as if we were all playing a role in his Apprentice TV show. Trump is not focused on the long term – he does not care as he will not be there. In some ways his “policies”, while disturbing the world order and weakening America, may have helped strengthen Europe while reshaping a different but potentially viable world, this being said with an emphasis on searching for an optimistic outcome post-nightmare and Faulknerian “sound and fury”. 

The latest disaster that reflects an easy move to please his disgruntled and anti-elite MAGA base is to attack Harvard, the oldest university in America, founded in 1636, and a beacon of excellence at all levels. Suppressing all the funding of Harvard on very dubious grounds attacks scientific research at the highest level and what was American excellence for generations, as all the Kennedys, including RFK Jr, would agree. Suppressing foreign student attendance, including the 7,000 who study there, is simply crazy in nature and against the very interest of America. More than one million foreign nationals study in American colleges and universities every year with an amazing impact on the finances of America then and later in the workplace, not to mention its diplomatic and geostrategic status, whether they stay in the US or go back to their own countries (43.8 per cent of the Fortune 500 companies were created by immigrants as Elon Musk could testify). I went to America for the first time to attend a semester at Harvard in 1981 to improve my English. I went back to Harvard in 1982 for another semester to study US foreign policy and international economics. I went back in 2008 for a special programme at Harvard Business School in my field of private equity and venture capital. While the academic experience was always great, being there and mixing with such a talented international crowd of students was what made Harvard such a pillar of US comparative advantage. And this unique experience helped make me early on who I became personally and professionally. It is an invaluable asset for America, which only someone like Donald Trump – with a rather opaque personal history at Wharton – cannot see. 

On a final and humorous note (the latter we always need in dire times), there is one segment that will certainly benefit from Trump’s erratic policies and style. There is no doubt that geopolitical risk and risk intelligence firms will benefit from Trump 2.0 given its main impact on world affairs: uncertainty. At least I should be productively busy. 

Warmest regards,

Serge  

Incompetence as the defining feature of Trump 2.0

16.4.25

Dear Partners in Thought, 

One should not feel good for being right so early on concerning matters like the multiple negative impact of Trump’s policies – if the term policies can still be used at all. It did not take a PhD degree in economics or being a master diplomat of the Kissinger or Brzezinski type to know that the overall Trump approach would be wrong for all parties involved from the outset. It is useful, however, to understand the key feature and sub-components of the Trump approach to managing American affairs: incompetence.

The incompetence can be found at two key inter-connected levels. The mode and type of decisions taken and who manages them. Decisions taken by a deluge of game-changing executive orders affected the world and America in no time as Trump 2.0 started – as seen with aggressive tariffs or strange foreign policy moves, not to mention the messy gradual destruction of the federal government infrastructure or, en route, the unusual and increasing attacks on the judiciary. A lot of emphasis was put on the stark news effect of such moves as the Panama Canal, Gulf of “America”, Greenland, Canada, Mexico while some other moves were very impactful in substance like with DOGE’s drastic developments or Ukraine and an odd rapprochement with Russia in the context of an elusive peace process – this whatever the grand anti-China strategic design behind it. The list of decisions impacting the world and America itself, including his own voters at the pocketbook and sheer job levels, became astounding. 

Unmanageable tariffs imposed at the same time on the whole world were a case in point, even if strong market reactions were to be expected, then also finally involving a rather passive business world to date. Back and forth decisions, as seen again with tariffs, that could be deemed “transactional”, thus very Trump-like, also reflected a desired chaos linked to an elusive but drastic clean-up (almost putting aside self-harm as secondary), all of this naturally creating a massive rebuke led by steep historical stock market and 401(k) declines in no time. And then tariff selectivity reminded us of latent corruption when supporters benefit from better treatments, at times leading to some back-and-forth moves again, showing mismanagement and late realisation of what does not fly in a still open and democratic society in 2025. As for illegal (and occasionally legal) immigrant deportations, and putting aside its costs to the economy, its challenging and unfocused management did not reflect the values and principles that made America. To be fair, Trump and his team can also be competent, like in destroying US higher education as seen with Harvard and Columbia, key historical pillars of US strength as if he held an old grudge against elite universities since his rather obscure college days at Wharton. It is hard to believe that Trump would be allowed to go forward with such crazy moves that could only create chaos while damaging America’s reputation but, unlike for his first term, there is no adult in the room – as he specifically wanted. 

Besides the incredibly harmful set of decisions seen since late January, his core team today is composed of “very average” professionals. Not stupid ones, but first known for their vocal and dissenting positions on their areas of focus in a fitting way to Trump’s own or even, for some, their strange behaviours. The US government, formally comprising Secretaries, is now populated by news anchors, podcasters, governors of small rural states, at times with weird personalities, some being anti-vaccine while others proud to have killed their dog or being mere conspiracy theorists. The usual, and needed, boring technocrats seem to be on permanent holiday. To be fair, the main adviser to Trump on tariffs, Peter Navarro, holds a PhD in economics from Harvard (his type of degree being a rarity among the top team) though he is also known to be weird and a convicted felon, which stresses a few other features and indeed a better team fit. One of the key weaknesses of Trump and his team is how they focus on the very short term, also in relation to domestic news impact, and not the range of consequences resulting from their policies – it is as if they were not mentally equipped to do so and are unable to work on scenario-management. Traditional American values and principles, or the sheer history of the country, are secondary to getting the president’s job done. Signalgate, however dreadful (even if almost funny) a national security blunder, unwittingly set the tone for poor top team quality and what incompetence really means with Trump 2.0. All participants in this highly confidential strike in Yemen kept their jobs while many tested professionals in the Pentagon and White House were losing theirs as not “belonging “, almost culturally, with the new times. The first Trump requirement in team selection today is cult following combined with obedience to the leader, so no challenging team oversight or control found in the first term can ever reappear. His team will always try to defend his and their moves as the right ones come what may and against sheer facts, this in ways that will make most rational people increasingly perplex as chaos keeps growing and the supposedly short-term pain endures. This basic assessment should not be a surprise to anyone.    

What we see is again the natural result of a populist movement (or indeed cult) focused on one man taking over the leadership of a country by winning an election in tactically focusing and capitalising on the natural anger of many voters (about illegal immigration, “woke” and, almost funnily today, inflation) though, even if enjoying a first term experience from which many would have learnt from, without having the requisite skills to run a country – especially a key one like the United States. Populist voters are generally sadly ill-equipped to understand much about “government” and are easy prey for populist leaders mainly focused on winning elections.  Populist leaders also target the elite or the old establishment that their voting base naturally see as depriving them of a good life. It is indeed a vicious circle as leaders secure power today through showbiz campaigns, often assisted by self-interested “influencing” podcasters like in the US, as if it were an end result with few skills or even interest in the chores associated with governing, even if they would never admit to this. And in the case of Trump himself, it is also a way to exist as if politics had been a natural follow-up phase to his The Apprentice TV show. Trump has treated American citizens as TV viewers who need to be kept awake, hence the deluge of strong news that he sees as defining his new presidency through “deep change”, this whatever happens later even if strangely, and perhaps sincerely, hoping for the best over time.      

The problem is that, once in power and, assuming some democratic features can stay in place, these populist leaders and their ill-equipped teams can stay in power for far too long a time, if only due to their term in office. Even assuming a likely 2026 mid-terms landslide against the hijacked or new Republican Party with a massive vote against the Trump chaos even if more so than one for the Democrats, about 21 months of Trump 2.0 could bring irremediable damages to the world and indeed America. In the meantime, however, the world may also likely react with a new geopolitical chessboard showing a much stronger China that will enjoy many more friends and a more unified and stronger Europe facing a much-weakened America domestically and globally, having erased in no time the benefits of having led the West and being the key world player for a century, as well as a champion of globalisation. These likely game-changing developments created by Trump’s policies would go much against his planned and simplistic end game. It will be interesting to see how the Trump team will explain where America is in two years’ time. And we will have the excruciating pleasure and likely associated damages nobody would want of seeing another physically and mentally declining president and his still obedient team trying hard to still exist, this in itself potentially bringing more bad scenarios for the world. 

Incompetence brought the world chaos and uncertainty, but we should all work gradually together to define a post-Trump era where the America we know finds itself anew – and the adults are back in the room (and the Oval Office).

Warmest regards,

Serge  

Getting the right take on Trump’s impact on America and the world

19-2-25

Dear Partners in Thought,

In less than a month back at the Resolute Desk, there has been a flood of Trump’s executive orders that are changing America and the world as we knew it. While it is potentially mind-damaging given its extent, it would be useful to keep track of most, if not all, of the decisions taken by the US President and seeing their gradual impact when implemented or if they are just for show and transactional tactics. The list is indeed very long and reflects many points of the infamous Heritage Foundation “Project 2025” that the Trump team had worked hard to dismiss as not their programme during the electoral campaign. 

What is clear is that Trump is clearly now in a position where he is changing America and indeed the world we have known since WW2. It is also increasingly likely that he is an unwitting tool of powerful business interests, of which Big Tech is the leader, and possibly indirectly of the “great powers” he is fond of, such as Russia and an “imperialistic brother” like Putin. In some ways, it is a game where all parties are leaders and tools, holding each other by the goatee, as the French saying goes, in what makes a sinister and world-damaging club.  Weakening America, both at home and abroad, by his poor style and decisions, also hurts the world we know as well as, naturally, Europe. The picture is so large that it takes some time to realise the extent of the multi-faceted damage while, with all things Trumpian, we may dangerously get used to his craziness over time, like many of his supporters have, creating a dangerous feeling of normality.  

The damage to America itself, including its own voting base, will be seen rather quickly at different levels. The gradual destruction of the Federal Government and traditional public service will have a serious impact at state level, including the Red ones, as services will no longer be federally funded in too many areas like education or health. The various political firings of officials at the Department of Justice combined with the massive “buyouts” (not to use the word termination) of many civil servants, including at the CIA, will damage the reputation, efficiency and even security of the US and its administration. Some segments of the US economy, like agriculture, that rely on huge swaths of undocumented but law-abiding workers, will have a terrible impact that even Red State farmers start worrying about (perhaps showbiz-announced mass deportations will prove too challenging to implement, thus reducing their bad impact.) Tariffs, that may look strong and good when announced, will result in higher inflation, as already seen, as Americans keep buying foreign goods or businesses need foreign parts to manufacture their own products. It would also appear that Trump wants to reward his extremist supporter groups and fund the protection of Christianity in a country where more than two thirds of its citizens are Christian. And now we know that assaulting the Capitol and killing police officers will be forgiven (if you do it for the current President, of course), putting the basic concepts of right and wrong in serious jeopardy. So far, many executive orders, some at times even breaching the Constitution, have been fought and rejected by the courts, but with time nothing guarantees that judicial power will hold, potentially leading to the gradual replacement of usual Western-type democracy by a Venezuelan model (no tariffs involved). 

These drastic changes are going hand-in-hand with some decisions affecting US foreign policy and its very key interests worldwide. It is clear that there may be a majority of Americans who do not care much about international affairs and are more focused on what matters to them directly at home. America is not alone in this respect even if one could relate this to an educational problem and its costs in “the country of the free”, all the more when too many are living lonely existences and rely only on easy-to-hear social media. Killing USAID is destroying American soft power which had helped the US to assume world leadership since the JFK era. Dealing with Russia on Ukraine without the latter and Europe involved is only temporarily but wrongly strengthening an existentially lost former great power while killing the basic cement of the Western world that is reflected in the historical and cultural bonds between America and Europe. A US-Russia-only dialogue to end the war in Ukraine only strengthens Moscow’s underwhelming position in the conflict and overall geopolitical stance while weakening greatly Europe and the Atlantic Alliance, not to mention Ukraine and its leadership. Anti-corruption regulations will be dismissed making global trade and investments going back to Far West times, stressing again Trump’s inherent “tool” nature. Going after allies – if not friendly neighbours like Canada – by wanting to absorb them or threatening a NATO member by the seizure of Greenland on security reasons combined with mineral resources gains is not exactly what Ronald Reagan or even George W. Bush would have ever dared in terms of American standing, values and principles. The fight against climate change globally seems something from the past while “drill, baby, drill”, has become the White House song of the day, pleasing both the US oil industry and, for once, some allies like Saudi Arabia. And let’s not talk about making Gaza a US-protected if not owned “Riviera” by displacing all its Palestinian residents, news that was received as expected even by some of the most Trump-flexible countries in the region. These developments sadly speak for themselves and do not require complex analytical soul searching to see their craziness.                   

While stating Trump’s decisions and their impact, it is also key to realise how we got there and why. Trump was a very rich kid, inheriting $400 million from his father – quite a social gap with some of his MAGA base – helping him to launch his real estate empire that proved to be very unsuccessful beyond the great Trump Tower-like names, while at times less than financially clean. It is clear that his transactional nature came from his rather unusual business life. And many, like Robert De Niro, rudely but honestly see him as a “jerk” and a “moron” as an individual. He also always enjoyed surrounding himself with shady characters (like the infamous Roy Cohn) or now very “obedient first” individuals, a feature we blatantly see in his current team of under-impressive secretaries like Peter Hegseth, Kristi Noem, Tulsi Gabbard or RFK Jr to name only a few. And his blatantly mixing family business interests with his presidency, as seen with his recent crypto initiative and the roles of his many relatives, is astonishing. Two recent examples speak for themselves: Melania Trump getting $40 million from Amazon’s Bezos, clearly a King’s courtier, for her “memoirs” or the appointment of the ex-convicted felon, father of his son-in-law Jared, as Ambassador to France, that could be a part of a great Hollywood movie script. There is however no doubt that he is a very gifted politician for our showbiz times, who has been a model for many populists in terms of style and messaging. And then, as a new development, Trump is also using the likes of Musk to do his bidding when it is easier, like when reshaping the public sector with a questionable and over-reaching DOGE and its team of subcontracted young tech bros or heavily dealing directly with German or British domestic politics (not that the flexible if not uber-opportunistic JD Vance, who will forever be remembered for his startling “threat from within” speech, did not meet the leader of the extreme right German AfD on the side of the Munich Security Conference, showing that MOs also evolve quite fast under Trump 2.0). 

Many observers of this developing drama feel that the 2026 mid-terms will correct things and see Congress in full control of the Democrats. For this, and in a normal scenario, the Democrats should wake up and think long and hard about their leadership and key programmes. Undocumented immigration, a bad thing which is often linked to cultural identity by its opponents, is never well-managed by liberal democrats the Western world over, given the sensitive feature attached to it, while diversity could also have been more sensibly supported and carried out in schools and businesses. The party also seems to be devoid of truly electable and inspiring leaders (Josh Shapiro needs to be followed) while the Republicans have had too many, even if the more acceptable ones by usual norms may be the likes of a rigid but highly professional Marco Rubio. The problem is that America’s new path does not prevent a constitutional crisis supported by a friendly Supreme Court when mid-terms suddenly become obsolete on the dubious grounds of enhanced efficiency (two years is a short time for any mandate as many, if not all, in the House of Representatives would agree.) Besides this sinister point, two years is enough to dismantle the architecture of US federal power and move away from America’s traditional leadership style with all the features we know. We may find ourselves by 2026 in a world where the US and China are both operating as great powers only, something the latter has worked hard to achieve for decades since Mao, while America nominally stays in the West but only in transactional ways. It is likely to be the next geopolitical picture of our world. Looking at the main great power rivalry to come, the US State Department last week removed the statement America did not support Taiwanese independence, an historical peace preserving stance, but it may simply be a “transactional” move reflecting our new times. 

Russia will keep being Russia, in search of its lost imperial past, combining aggressions when needed and high moral stances on the surface while working with lost states like Iran and North Korea no other key nations really want to deal with. Russia will always be an existential threat for Europe even if the former will increasingly be weak economically but also more dangerous as a result. In many ways, both China and Russia may to some extent be the winners of a short-sighted Trump 2.0 diplomacy as many countries, notably in Africa, Latin America or Asia if not eventually in some parts of Europe may eventually decide to switch strategic allegiance. (in some ways, the real winner of Trump 2.0 may become China if a smart Xi leadership decided to present a friendlier Beijing as a more viable strategic alternative to the US to many potential partners globally, this with Europe also reviewing that game-changing option in some areas.) It is also clear that some rising powers needing a feeling of protection from strong neighbours may also surprisingly adjust to Trump’s new transactional approach as recently seen with Modi’s India in DC regarding both combined trade and defence matters. Europe should see the Trump era also as a needed wake-up call and work on its key nature and especially on its defence in spite of all the natural divisions inherent to its national multiplicity and variety of strategic interests. There is no more excuse to hide behind history and feeling that American protection allows Europe and its nations to focus on the economy only. Defence is now a key feature of European existence, a new fact that many Europeans will have to learn how to live with and accept fully if they wish to survive as Europe or indeed as nations. Perhaps Trump 2.0 will prompt Britain and the EU to get more quickly closer to each other if not reunited at some point even if Trump is likely to work on dividing them by staying softer on London. 

At the very personal level, Trump 2.0 and its massively destructive changes hurt the French-born European I am as it kills what America always stood for in my life and helped me define myself. America was never perfect, but its values and principles helped me grow up as a child, thanks to the likes of John Wayne, Gary Cooper or Kirk Douglas, making me go there in my early twenties to helping me build over a few years who I became personally and professionally. It was a model of the idealised sort, but one that was strong and good. I want it back for all of us and the world. 

As already stated, Europe, while strengthening itself, will have to work with the growing American “opposition”-to-be to recreate the win-win community that is the Transatlantic Alliance based on shared historical and cultural values and principles. While the nightmare goes on, each of us in Europe should work hard with our many friends in America to help re-cementing our great partnership and make it even better. Trump should not last. Common sense needs to prevail.     

With warmest regards,

Serge