President Trump’s actions are inflicting harm on the United States that may take decades to mend. No election, not even the one after the next, will be able to fix the damage Trump is causing.
To grasp the severity of this situation, comparing it to the Cold War offers a useful perspective. Historically, Republicans and Democrats often clashed over how to deal with the Soviet Union, debating everything from military spending to arms control and interventions involving Soviet allies. Despite deep divisions over Vietnam that fueled political debate for over a decade, both parties shared core beliefs: a steadfast commitment to NATO and a recognition of the Soviet Union as a significant threat. They were both dedicated to containing Soviet influence.
During that era, American elections could indeed sway national security strategies, but they never questioned fundamental alliances or America’s core identity.
Fast forward to now. Take the recent incident in the Oval Office. President Trump, alongside Vice President JD Vance, confronted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on live television. Vance accused Zelensky of being “disrespectful,” and Trump launched into a direct attack, pointing out that Zelensky was “gambling with the lives of millions,” a move Trump labeled as hugely disrespectful to the U.S., a nation that has provided substantial support.
Trump’s harsh rhetoric towards Zelensky is just a continuation of his adversarial stance against allies. His message is clear: America’s allegiances are fluid, and voter preferences might one day veer towards leaders who reject longstanding partnerships in favor of aligning with dangerous global regimes.
Even if the Democrats achieve a significant victory in the 2026 midterms and win the presidential election in 2028, this perception won’t change. Allies will understand that America’s commitments are only as solid as its current president, making long-term defense strategies and sustainable trade policies almost unfeasible.
At the same time Trump was criticizing Ukraine, his administration was withdrawing support from international humanitarian initiatives, including malaria prevention, polio vaccines, tuberculosis treatments, and Ebola surveillance. Should these withdrawals persist, a valuable humanitarian framework, one that has saved countless lives, could crumble.
Domestically, the situation mirrors this volatility. Trump’s sweeping changes—mass layoffs in the federal workforce, pardons of political allies, and attempts to dissolve legally established agencies—make domestic policy as unstable as international policy.
A nation cannot efficiently govern itself if it dismantles and reconstructs its public service tools every four years. It cannot continually close and reopen agencies depending on election outcomes.
Many have warned about Trump’s push for a constitutional upheaval. The Capitol events on January 6 laid bare his ambition for power and his disregard for legal processes. His goal appears to be a restructuring of American governance, placing presidential power above all.
As we grapple with the fallout from these events, we come face-to-face with the Founders’ intentions when they designed a system to prevent unchecked presidential power. To truly understand this, listen to Ezra Klein’s conversation with Yuval Levin of the American Enterprise Institute. Levin emphasizes that the president’s role is not to represent the entire nation, a task meant for Congress, but to administer Congress’s institutions and shepherd ratified treaties.
Levin argues that while American democracy demands majority rule, the mechanisms must protect minorities and ensure inclusive majority consensus before implementing significant change. This checks-and-balances framework makes change challenging, but also lasting, ensuring programs like Social Security and Medicare aren’t threatened by a single administration’s desires.
If Trump continues to push his agenda, it might bolster Democratic chances, but merely shifting political control won’t stabilize the nation or heal ideological rifts. Current legal challenges are critical. The Supreme Court might not compel presidential support for Ukraine, but it can uphold contracts, protect civil servants, and defend congressional agencies from presidential overreach, ensuring the constitutional order remains intact.
Amidst this turmoil, the phrase “constitutional order” may sound academic, but Trump’s actions challenge the very foundation of America’s stability. The damage is profound. How long will it take for allies to trust America as a steadfast partner again?
As a conservative, I value the philosophy of G.K. Chesterton, which cautions reformers against hastily dismantling existing structures they don’t understand. Trump discards this wisdom, recklessly tearing down metaphorical fences.
Destruction of institutions erodes trust—arguably the toughest thing to rebuild once lost.
