Summary

This article provides a multidisciplinary analysis of the two presidential terms of Donald J. Trump, examining his policies, governance style, legal entanglements, and broader institutional impacts. Trump’s administrations—2017–2021 and 2025–present—have triggered fundamental shifts in American domestic and foreign policy, judicial ideology, regulatory philosophy, and public discourse.

The analysis spans ten core areas, including economic policy, immigration, civil rights, international relations, ethical controversies, judicial appointments, the administrative state, electoral integrity, and comparative leadership models. The article integrates legal precedent, administrative actions, public opinion data, and comparative political theory to evaluate both achievements and democratic risks associated with Trump’s leadership.

By situating Trump within historical and global contexts—and grounding the analysis in primary and secondary sources—this article aims to inform legal practitioners, scholars, policymakers, and engaged citizens as they assess the evolving meaning of executive power, constitutional resilience, and democratic accountability in the United States.

A Nation at a Crossroads

Deciding whether to support Donald J. Trump and his presidential administrations—spanning from 2017–2021 and again beginning in 2025—requires a sober, comprehensive examination of the policies he enacted, the legal and ethical implications of his conduct, and the broader sociopolitical effects of his leadership. Trump’s presidency has reshaped American politics in ways both visible and institutional, demanding critical evaluation that goes beyond partisan allegiance.

I. Economic Policy and Governance

A. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: Economic Stimulus or Unequal Windfall?

Trump’s signature legislative achievement during his first term was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which slashed the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% and restructured individual tax brackets. Proponents lauded the law for contributing to economic growth, citing a near-historic unemployment low of 3.5% in late 2019 and strong stock market performance. Business investment rose modestly, and some firms offered wage bonuses or stock buybacks.

However, independent analyses, including those from the Congressional Budget Office and the Tax Policy Center, suggest the benefits were disproportionately captured by high-income individuals and corporations, while middle-class benefits were more modest and temporary. Moreover, the legislation added over $1.8 trillion to the national deficit over a decade, raising sustainability concerns and leaving fewer fiscal tools for future economic crises.

B. Trade Protectionism and Tariffs

Trump’s economic nationalism was most apparent in his trade war with China. Beginning in 2018 and continuing into his second term, Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on hundreds of billions in Chinese imports. The stated goals were to protect American industries, address intellectual property theft, and rebalance trade deficits.

While these actions did lead to renegotiated trade deals and momentary political leverage, they also prompted retaliatory tariffs, particularly against American agricultural exports. Studies from the University of Michigan and the Peterson Institute for International Economics noted that consumer prices rose and manufacturing output declined. Agricultural subsidies spiked to offset farmer losses, undercutting the market rationale for free trade.

In 2025, a reversal of some tariff policies led to a sudden stock market surge, triggering accusations of insider trading and self-enrichment, given Trump family holdings in industries that benefited from the shift. Although no formal charges have been filed, the timing has reignited ethical debates about presidential conflicts of interest.

C. Deregulation and the Cryptocurrency Surge

In both terms, Trump pursued aggressive deregulation across environmental, labor, financial, and technology sectors. His second term has focused particularly on the cryptocurrency and decentralized finance (DeFi) space. Critics allege that the Trump administration’s rollback of anti-money laundering regulations and the deregulation of digital assets coincides with private investments in crypto ventures by members of the Trump family and close political allies.

While supporters claim deregulation enhances American competitiveness and innovation, watchdog groups argue it exposes markets to fraud and systemic risk. The SEC’s enforcement cutbacks under Trump’s second administration have coincided with a surge in crypto-related financial scams and volatility.

II. Immigration Policy and Civil Liberties

A. “Zero Tolerance” and the Crisis of Family Separation

Perhaps no single policy better symbolizes the Trump administration’s approach to immigration than the “zero tolerance” policy instituted in 2018. Under this directive, unauthorized border crossers—including asylum-seeking families—were criminally prosecuted, resulting in the forcible separation of over 5,500 children from their parents or guardians. The policy was implemented with little inter-agency coordination, and government audits later confirmed that hundreds of children were not tracked or promptly reunited due to flawed recordkeeping.

The policy drew sharp rebukes from human rights organizations, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and international observers. Though rescinded in late 2018 under pressure, elements of the policy reemerged during Trump’s second term in 2025, including reports of expedited deportations and renewed child separations, especially involving asylum seekers from Central America.

B. Immigration Enforcement in the Second Term: Escalation and Controversy

In 2025, Trump has doubled down on immigration enforcement as a cornerstone of his domestic agenda. Executive actions have widened the scope of fast-track deportations and expanded authority for ICE agents to detain individuals suspected of posing security threats—often without judicial oversight. Civil liberties organizations have challenged these policies on due process and equal protection grounds.

One flashpoint has been the targeting of individuals accused of gang affiliations. In multiple cases, detentions have occurred based on unsubstantiated allegations, sometimes involving nothing more than social media posts or anonymous tips. Legal scholars have drawn parallels to McCarthy-era tactics and warned of creeping erosion of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment protections.

C. Suppression of Dissent: From Campuses to Courts

The Trump administration’s 2025 executive orders on national security and immigration have also raised alarms in academic and legal circles. Notably, several pro-Palestinian students and scholars—some on valid visas—have been detained or denied reentry into the U.S., with official justifications citing national security.

While the administration maintains that it is protecting against extremism, civil liberties groups such as the ACLU and Human Rights Watch have documented patterns of ideological profiling and speech suppression, potentially violating First Amendment protections. Several lawsuits are pending in federal courts challenging the constitutionality of these detentions.

III. Civil Rights and Domestic Policy

A. Rollback of Protections for Marginalized Communities

Trump’s administrations—both past and present—have actively dismantled civil rights protections enacted under prior presidencies. While often framed as efforts to combat “wokeness” or federal overreach, the policies have had measurable impacts on historically marginalized communities.

During his first term, Trump rescinded guidance protecting transgender students under Title IX, barred openly transgender individuals from serving in the military, and revoked Obama-era diversity training requirements for federal contractors.

In his second term, these efforts have accelerated through the implementation of Executive Order 14168 (2025), which significantly curtailed LGBTQ+ protections across federal agencies. The order eliminated mandatory DEI offices in federal departments, barred funding for diversity-based research, and restricted contractors from holding what it labels as “ideologically biased” training. Critics argue that the order is both substantively discriminatory and procedurally unconstitutional, as it seeks to override civil rights statutes through executive fiat.

Legal challenges are underway, with plaintiffs citing violations of the Equal Protection Clause and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, particularly with respect to employment discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ employees affirmed in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).

B. Targeting DEI Initiatives and Academic Institutions

In both public education and corporate governance, the Trump administration’s campaign against diversity and inclusion has broadened. Federal grant-making rules have been rewritten to disfavor institutions that incorporate DEI principles. The Department of Education has launched investigations into universities allegedly “discriminating” against white and Asian applicants under race-conscious admissions policies.

This ideological shift has led to the dissolution of university DEI offices at institutions that rely on federal funding; the loss of accreditation threats for medical and legal schools requiring cultural competency training; and legislative efforts by GOP-led states, coordinated with federal guidelines, to ban DEI language in public contracts and curricula.

While proponents claim these moves level the playing field and eliminate “identity politics,” civil rights scholars warn of a rollback of decades of racial and gender equity progress.

C. The Surveillance State and Protest Response

Perhaps most controversially, the Trump administration’s second term has witnessedincreased surveillance of protest groups, particularly racial justice, environmental, and pro-Palestinian activists. Leaked internal DHS documents referenced new algorithms to flag dissenting speech and assembly patterns, prompting bipartisan concern over civil liberties violations.

Multiple FOIA lawsuits have been filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Brennan Center for Justice seeking greater transparency into these surveillance efforts, which critics liken to post-9/11 abuses under the Patriot Act. As one law professor noted, “Trump’s second term has weaponized the administrative state not only to deregulate, but to intimidate.”

IV. Foreign Policy and Global Standing

A. “America First”: Realignment or Retreat?

Trump’s foreign policy doctrine—summarized in the slogan “America First”—has profoundly reshaped the United States’ role on the global stage. Supporters argue it reflects a necessary recalibration of American priorities, correcting decades of overextension and exploitation by international partners. Critics contend it has eroded U.S. credibility, weakened alliances, and emboldened adversaries.

During his first term, Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA), the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and attempted to withdraw from NATO obligations before being checked by Congress and the Pentagon.

These withdrawals sent shockwaves through diplomatic circles and led to unprecedented uncertainty among traditional allies, particularly in Europe. The perception of the U.S. as an unreliable partner undercut collective action on climate, security, and trade.

B. The Abraham Accords and Middle East Strategy

One of the few recognized bipartisan achievements of Trump’s foreign policy has been the negotiation and signing of the Abraham Accords in 2020, which normalized diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab nations, including the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan.

While the Accords did not resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—and critics argue they sidelined Palestinian interests—they did represent a strategic realignment in the region that reduced some tensions and enhanced counter-Iran cooperation.

In his second term, Trump has attempted to build on this success by encouraging broader military and intelligence collaboration between signatory countries and the United States. However, these gains have been undercut by domestic instability and concerns over the administration’s authoritarian tendencies, raising questions about the long-term durability of these alliances.

C. Retreat from Multilateralism and Soft Power Decline

Perhaps more concerning from a geopolitical standpoint is the erosion of American soft power. Surveys from the Pew Research Center and Economist Intelligence Unit have documented a steady decline in global public opinion of the U.S. since 2017, particularly in democratic countries such as Canada, Germany, and Australia.

Tourism from allied nations has fallen since Trump’s first term, with political polarization and safety concerns cited by would-be travelers. International students and researchers have increasingly opted for Europe or Canada over the U.S., citing visa instability and political hostility.

Trump’s often antagonistic posture toward international bodies such as the United Nations, World Health Organization, and World Trade Organization has weakened American leadership in global forums. In 2025, his administration further cut U.S. contributions to multilateral institutions, citing “sovereignty concerns,” prompting warnings from defense officials about declining global influence.

V. Ethical, Legal, and Constitutional Issues

A. First Term: A Presidency Under Investigation

From the outset, Trump’s first term was defined by unprecedented legal scrutiny and allegations of misconduct. While impeachment proceedings and legal challenges did not result in criminal convictions against Trump himself, they revealed significantconstitutional gray zones in presidential accountability.

1. Campaign Finance Violations and the Stormy Daniels Scandal. Trump was implicated in a federal campaign finance violation through payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Clifford) and Playboy model Karen McDougal during the 2016 election. His then-attorney, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty and testified that the payments were made “at the direction of” the candidate to influence the election—a direct violation of campaign disclosure laws under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).

While the DOJ declined to prosecute Trump under a long-standing Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion barring indictment of a sitting president, legal scholars debated whether this amounted to de facto immunity in cases of electoral fraud.

2. Obstruction of Justice and the Mueller Report. The Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election documented multiple episodes in which Trump may have attempted to obstruct justice—including pressuring FBI Director James Comey to drop the investigation into Michael Flynn, firing Comey, and instructing subordinates to curtail or mislead investigators.

Although Mueller refrained from reaching a prosecutorial conclusion, citing DOJ policy, he famously wrote:

“If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

The House of Representatives later cited these findings during Trump’s first impeachment proceedings, although the Senate acquitted him along party lines.

3. Emoluments Clause Litigation and Conflicts of Interest, Trump’s decision to retain ownership of the Trump Organization while in office prompted lawsuits under the Domestic and Foreign Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution. Plaintiffs—including the Attorneys General of Maryland and the District of Columbia—alleged that foreign and domestic government officials patronizing Trump-owned hotels constitutedunconstitutional financial gain.

Though the Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the cases after Trump left office, lower courts recognized the legitimacy of the plaintiffs’ standing—a first in American legal history.

B. Second Term: Legal Risk in Real Time

In Trump’s second term, the legal and ethical challenges have intensified, compounded by diminished oversight and greater politicization of the Department of Justice.

1. Insider Trading and Market Manipulation Allegations. In 2025, Trump abruptly reversed course on tariffs targeting key industrial sectors. The market reacted swiftly, sending share prices surging in sectors with documented links to the Trump Organization and its affiliates. Reports of coordinated stock purchases prior to the announcement triggered calls from Senate Banking Committee members for a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and DOJ investigation into potential insider trading and abuse of non-public presidential information.

While Trump has denied wrongdoing and labeled the accusations “witch hunts,” the incident illustrates how financial conflicts of interest persist when blind trusts and divestiture are eschewed.

2. Curtailment of White-Collar Crime Enforcement. Trump’s 2025 Justice Department has quietly deprioritized enforcement of foreign bribery, campaign finance violations, and securities fraud. Whistleblowers within the DOJ’s Criminal Division have raised alarms that Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) cases have been shelved without explanation, and political appointees have overruled career prosecutors on indictments against politically connected executives.

This rollback has prompted concern among international partners and former DOJ officials that the U.S. is abdicating its historic leadership role in transnational anti-corruption efforts.

VI. Public Opinion and Polarization

A. A Deepening National Divide

Donald Trump’s political persona and governance style have both capitalized on and exacerbated a period of intense polarization in American politics. Throughout his two terms, his approval ratings have remained unusually stable within partisan lines, hovering between 35–45% nationally, while maintaining near-unanimous support among Republican voters.

Polls from Pew Research Center and Gallup highlight a consistent dynamic: Among Republicans, support for Trump remains above 80%, driven by cultural, economic, and anti-establishment affinity. Among Democrats and independents, his approval rating often drops below 30%, driven by concerns about civil rights, democratic backsliding, and economic inequality.

B. Demographic and Generational Splits

Trump’s support base is strongest among non-college-educated white voters, rural and exurban populations, older generations, particularly Baby Boomers. However, the recent severe dips in the stock markets may have long term effects on the scope of his support, particularly those who rely on their long-term savings plans for disposable income.

Conversely, Trump’s policies and rhetoric have alienated younger voters (Gen Z and Millennials), racial minorities, suburban professionals and women, especially post-2018.

The result is a deepening geographic and cultural divide, with Trumpism functioning less as a traditional ideological platform and more as a populist, identity-based political movement. Analysts warn that this dynamic poses long-term risks to democratic cohesion, particularly as truth, legality, and trust in institutions become politically relative concepts.

C. Authoritarian Rhetoric and Democratic Institutions

A recurring concern among political scientists is Trump’s recurrent use of authoritarian rhetoric—undermining elections, attacking the judiciary, demonizing the press, and encouraging loyalty to himself over institutional norms. His continued denial of the 2020 election outcome, paired with efforts to centralize power in the executive branch, reflect a challenge to core tenets of American constitutional democracy.

Events such as the January 6th Capitol insurrection, subsequent pardons for convicted participants in 2025, and proposals to weaken judicial independence have raised questions not merely of political preference—but of governability and institutional durability.

VII. Judicial Appointments and the Transformation of the Federal Bench

One of Donald Trump’s most enduring legacies lies in his judicial appointments. By the end of his first term, Trump had appointed three Supreme Court justices—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—shifting the Court decisively to the right for the first time in decades. This transformation reshaped federal jurisprudence on issues ranging from abortion and gun rights to administrative law and religious freedom.

In addition to the Supreme Court, Trump appointed over 230 federal judges, including a considerable number to appellate courts, many of them young and affiliated with the Federalist Society. These appointments have begun to yield long-term consequences. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), the Court overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion—a culmination of decades of conservative legal strategy catalyzed under Trump. Trump-appointed judges have been pivotal in limiting the power of federal agencies, most notably in West Virginia v. EPA, which narrowed the EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act. Courts with Trump-appointed majorities have increasingly embraced originalist interpretations, which constrain the use of implied constitutional rights and expand executive discretion.

In his second term, Trump has continued to appoint judges with an emphasis on skepticism toward the administrative state, environmental regulation, and DEI mandates. Critics argue that this “judicialization of ideology” risks undermining constitutional evolution and entrenching minority rule.

VIII. Trump and the Administrative State: From Dismantling to Reengineering

Trump’s presidency has marked the most comprehensive attack on the modern administrative state since its formation under the New Deal. His rhetoric—frequently invoking the “deep state”—has translated into substantive policies aimed at limiting the power and independence of federal agencies.

Key administrative rollbacks include a sharp reduction in regulatory rulemaking under the Clean Power Plan, Dodd-Frank, and Title IX. The 2020 Executive Order 13957 (later revoked), which sought to reclassify civil service employees as Schedule F, making them more easily terminable—a direct threat to bureaucratic independence. Systematic politicization of agency leadership, including the installation of loyalists at the DOJ, CDC, and intelligence agencies.

In his second term, Trump has revived and expanded efforts to reshape the civil service. A revised Schedule F order in 2025 seeks to replace large swaths of executive agency leadership with appointees who affirm loyalty to the administration. Critics—including former OMB directors and civil service unions—warn of a de facto purge of institutional knowledge and a new era of political patronage.

Moreover, Trump’s public statements regarding the DOJ—demanding “loyal prosecutors” and threatening retribution—raise constitutional concerns over the independence of the Justice Department, a cornerstone of rule-of-law governance.

IX. Electoral Integrity and the Post-2020 Legal Landscape

Trump’s refusal to concede the 2020 presidential election and his continued propagation of the “Big Lie” narrative have had profound and enduring effects on electoral governance in the United States.

Following January 6, 2021, dozens of state legislatures introduced or passed bills tightening voting access, many citing election integrity concerns. These include shortened early voting periods, stricter ID laws, and purging of voter rolls; increased criminal penalties for election officials who make procedural errors; and the transfer of election oversight from bipartisan commissions to state legislatures or partisan officials.

In Trump’s second term, these trends have intensified, A 2025 executive order authorized the monitoring of federal elections for “fraudulent activity,” raising fears of federal overreach and targeted voter intimidation. Trump has openly pressured state legislatures to decertify election results in districts with high opposition turnout, citingunverified fraud claims. Federal lawsuits challenging state-level voter suppression lawshave been delayed or dismissed in federal courts now dominated by Trump appointees.

Legal scholars warn that the combination of disinformation, legislative suppression, and judicial passivity poses a structural threat to the constitutional right to vote. The erosion of public trust in election outcomes has also translated into increased threats against election workers and a dangerous normalization of political violence.

Legacy and the Crossroads

Donald Trump’s presidencies have altered the American political, legal, and international landscape in ways that may not be fully appreciated for years to come. His economic policies—especially tax reform and deregulation—are credited with short-term growth and corporate gains, but criticized for fueling inequality and debt. His foreign policy has realigned Middle East alliances while diminishing global trust in American leadership. His immigration and civil rights policies have reshaped the social contract, with lasting consequences for constitutional interpretation and civic identity.

What most distinguishes Trump’s presidency is not policy alone, but his method of governance: rule by disruption, norm defiance, and populist identity. His critics see this as an erosion of liberal democracy; his supporters view it as a necessary rejection of bureaucratic stagnation.

As Trump continues his second term, Americans face foundational questions: How should power be checked in a populist presidency? Can institutions withstand charismatic, autocratic impulses? Will partisan loyalty eclipse constitutional constraint? The answers will define not only Trump’s legacy, but the trajectory of American democracy itself.

X. Comparative Presidential Analysis: Trump in Historical and Global Context

Donald Trump’s presidency defies easy comparison within American history, yet meaningful parallels can be drawn—both with past U.S. presidents and with contemporary world leaders. Evaluating Trump through these lenses helps clarify the uniqueness of his political strategy and the implications for American constitutional order.

A. Historical U.S. Comparisons

1. Andrew Jackson (1829–1837): Populist Appeal and Executive Power Expansion. Trump, like Jackson, cast himself as a champion of the “common man” against coastal elites and entrenched political institutions. Both presidents viewed themselves as avatars of popular sovereignty and challenged the legitimacy of the judiciary and central banking. Jackson’s dismantling of the Bank of the United States echoes Trump’s attacks on the Federal Reserve and the “deep state.”

2. Richard Nixon (1969–1974): Institutional Subversion and Legal Crisis. Trump’s relationship with the rule of law draws sharp comparison to Nixon. Both faced obstruction of justice allegations, weaponized executive privilege, and saw their inner circles indicted or convicted. Nixon’s resignation under threat of impeachment—and Trump’s two impeachments—highlight their shared constitutional volatility.

3. Ronald Reagan (1981–1989): Deregulation and Ideological Realignment. Though ideologically distinct, Trump borrowed Reagan’s deregulatory instincts and rhetoric of American exceptionalism. However, Reagan promoted broad-based coalitions and international alliances—areas where Trump diverged radically throughnationalist and isolationist policies.

B. Contemporary Global Comparisons

1. Viktor Orbán (Hungary): Illiberal Democracy and Institutional Capture. Trump’s approach to press freedom, judicial independence, and academic dissent mirrors patterns seen in Orbán’s Hungary. Both leaders centralize power, discredit democratic institutions, and maintain electoral support through cultural grievance politics and media control.

2. Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil): Populism and Crisis Governance. Trump and Bolsonaro share climate skepticism, attacks on electoral systems, and COVID-era science denialism. Each cultivated a combative public persona while simultaneously weakening institutional checks—though Trump’s legal exposure and second presidential term set him apart in severity and longevity.

3. Silvio Berlusconi (Italy): Business Empire, Media Domination, Legal Evasion. Trump and Berlusconi both turned media fame into political capital, retained business holdings while in office, and faced legal entanglements over fraud and corruption. Both advanced a personalized style of governance that often blurred the line between private interest and public office.

C. What Makes Trump Unique?

Unlike his predecessors or contemporaries, Trump has governed while under criminal investigation, indictment, and post-impeachment status; repeatedly threatened to use state power to retaliate against political enemies; actively delegitimized democratic elections and encouraged extra-legal redress; and returned to office after a constitutional rupture (January 6th) without structural reform or legal constraint. This constellation of traits suggests that Trump is not merely a populist or an outsider, but the first truly post-institutional president—one who seeks to wield power outside the norms and restraints of constitutional liberalism, while still formally occupying its offices.

Annotated Bibliography: Trump Presidencies (2017–2025)

Legal and Government Documents

Mueller, Robert S. III. Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election. U.S. Department of Justice, 2019. — Primary source documenting potential obstruction of justice and Russian interference.

Congressional Budget Office. The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2018 to 2028. April 2018. — Analyzes fiscal implications of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. Family Separation Policy Review. Report to Congress, October 2020. — Investigates federal mismanagement of the ‘zero tolerance’ immigration policy.

Supreme Court of the United States. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022). — Overturned Roe v. Wade; enabled by Trump’s judicial appointments.

Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel. A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution. March 2000. — Cited in decision not to indict Trump during his presidency.

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 591 U.S. ___ (2020). — Examines congressional oversight authority over a sitting president.

Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. ___ (2018). — Upheld the president’s authority to issue travel bans on national security grounds.

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). — Established limits to executive privilege.

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). — Foundational case on deference to administrative agencies; under threat in Trump’s judicial era.

Office of Government Ethics (OGE). Conflict of Interest Guidance and Ethics Reports, 2017–2020. — Provides context for Trump’s failure to divest business holdings.

News and Journalism

AP News. “Consumer Confidence Declines as Tariff Fears Mount.” September 2019. — Documents economic anxiety related to trade policy shifts.

The Guardian. “Australia Travel to U.S. Declines Amid Political Tensions.” December 2023. — Demonstrates decline in international soft power.

Reuters. “Family Separation Practices Resume Under Trump’s New Immigration Push.” March 2025. — Reports on the reimplementation of child separation practices.

Teen Vogue. “Students Detained Under Trump’s Campus Monitoring Program.” April 2025. — Covers civil rights implications for academi