Trump administration policies lead to nationwide protests. His administration reveals a radical shift toward executive dominance, wherein the second term exhibits a significantly higher issuance of 210 Executive orders in ten months, compared to 220 over four years in his first term. The second presidential term constitutes a demonstrable intensification of the Unilateralism (America first foreign policy). Trump 2.0 is more focused on deregulation and targeted tariffs, evidenced by the issuance of a number of executive orders. His policies are a more assertive challenge to the constitutional separation of powers, particularly through the unprecedented restructuring of the federal bureaucracy and judicial independence. The commencement of the second term was marked by an immediate and aggressive assertion of unilateral executive power, initiating a rapid dismantling of international agreements (e.g., the Paris Agreement and WHO), strict immigration policies (focus on mass deportations and nationwide ICE raids; signing of the Laken Riley Act), focus on tariffs ( imposing tariffs on 90 countries particularly targeting China and large scale budget cuts) and institutional restructuring of the domestic federal landscape through mass civil service dismissals and the proposed military deployment in defiance of federalist principles. Trump 2.0 is implementing Trump 1.0 policies, but in a more aggressive way. This includes Unilateralism, Economic Protectionism, Restrictive Immigration Policies, Regulatory Retrenchment, Judicial Realignment, Abrogation of Multilateral Commitments, and Fiscal Expansionism.
The Trump administration has demonstrated a consistent prioritization of economic protectionism through the imposition of tariffs, with a notable acceleration and broadening of this strategy in the current term. Trade protectionism, implemented through tariffs, has been a consistent policy instrument across both the Trump 1.0 and 2.0 administrations. The targeted imposition of duties against China evolved into a comprehensive global strategy. The imposition of high tariffs on over 90 countries. The administration implemented a series of unilateral ad valorem tariffs against global economies, culminating in a peak duty of 145% on Chinese goods, alongside differentiated rates of 50% on India and Brazil, 19% on Pakistan, 35% on Canada, and 20% on European Union member states. In response to high tariffs China imposed 125% tariff and restrictions on exports of rare earth metals. Thereby intensifies the U.S-China trade war and signals unilateralism.
Trump’s repeated declaration of having concluded eight distinct conflicts. These wars includes, Israel-Hamas war, Israel-Iran war, Pakistan-India war, Rwanda-the Democratic Republic of Congo, Thailand-Cambodia, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Egypt-Ethiopia and Serbia-Kosovo. These assertions are frequently accompanied by demand for the Nobel Peace Prize. These eight conflicts encompasses several pivotal military engagements. Most importantly, Israel-Hamas conflict has transitioned into a first phase, characterized by a U.S.-brokered Gaza peace plan that mandates a ceasefire. Realistically, its implementation is currently undermined by continued kinetic activity within the Gaza Strip by Israel. Secondly, in May the world witnessed a significant U.S diplomatic intervention in the South Asian rivalry, culminated ceasefire declaration between the nuclear-armed states of Pakistan and India. Thirdly, in June Israel-Iran war began when Israel bombed military and nuclear facilities in Iran. After 12 days, Trump announced ceasefire between states. These are the most significant wars among eight wars by Trump claims to mediate.
Aforementioned, accumulated policies of the administration served as a direct catalyst for the emergence of widespread protests. No Kings protest, was aimed to be an anti-authoritarian movement against perceived executive tyranny. This movement successfully organized thousands of events across the United States and the European Union, demonstrating a formidable scale of political opposition against the administration’s authoritarian policies. In June, an estimated 7 million people attended the rallies across the country. The presence of Democratic senators Cory Booker, Ed Markey, Chris Murphy, Adam Schiff, Chuck Schumer, Raphael Warnock, and Elizabeth Warren indicated that Trump’s opposition party is behind the nationwide protest.
Despite the significant political pressure generated by the No Kings protest movement. The U.S. Constitution does not afford popular dissent a direct mechanism for presidential removal. A sitting executive can only be dismissed via two established constitutional procedures: resignation and impeachment. If the President resigns, it results in the immediate succession of the Vice President. Secondly, Impeachment by the House of Representatives and subsequent conviction by the Senate for high crimes such as treason can result in removal and potential disqualification from future office. Protest could potentially precipitate Donald Trump’s resignation after pressure exertion by mass protesters. The potential for Donald Trump’s impeachment based on an allegation of treason. Following the House of Representatives’ passage of an impeachment resolution, conviction by the requisite Senate super majority would trigger mandatory disqualification. This scenario aligns with the political dynamics observed during the Watergate scandal. In which President Richard Nixon resigned to avoid expected impeachment, which could resulted in disqualification.
Be the first to comment