Carlos Mira, The Post, International Edition
Donald Trump’s return to the White House was not a routine transfer of power, but the revival of a governing model built on confrontation, personal centrality, and a transactional view of politics. His first year back in office was shaped less by surprise than by consolidation: a familiar agenda pursued in a far more fragile institutional, social, and geopolitical environment than during his first term.
From the outset, Trump chose speed and confrontation as his governing tools. He reinstated hardline immigration policies, rolled back environmental regulations, and reinforced a narrative of a “captured state” to justify sustained pressure on the judiciary, federal agencies, and parts of the bureaucracy. Unlike his first presidency, he no longer governs as an outsider. He understands the system’s pressure points—and pushes deliberately against them.
On the economic front, Trump benefited from a slowdown in inflation that predated his return, but structural tensions remain unresolved. Persistent fiscal deficits and a deeply segmented economy continue to weigh on the outlook. His pro-market rhetoric coexists with selective protectionism designed to shield industrial employment and secure his electoral base, even at the cost of renewed friction with traditional trade partners.
2026: The Year Power Is Put to the Test
If 2025 can be read as a period of political consolidation, 2026 looms as the true inflection point of Trump’s presidency. It brings together three decisive forces: the natural erosion of power, midterm elections, and a public no longer willing to judge intentions rather than outcomes.
The midterm elections will function as a referendum on Trump’s leadership. Retaining congressional power is essential to prevent the second half of his term from becoming mired in legislative gridlock, investigations, and institutional paralysis. A significant setback would revive the dynamics of a “besieged presidency” and severely constrain his governing capacity.
At the same time, the real economy becomes the primary political barometer. Employment, purchasing power, and financial stability will define public judgment. At this stage of the cycle, arguments about inherited conditions lose credibility. Any economic downturn would translate directly into political vulnerability.
In foreign policy, 2026 forces Trump to move from rhetoric to decisions. On Ukraine, his pledge to accelerate a negotiated exit faces hard limits. Neither Moscow nor Kyiv enters talks without preconditions, while Europe watches warily for any agreement perceived as overly concessive. The White House is likely to push for a rapid, results-driven settlement aimed more at closing the conflict than reshaping the regional balance—risking short-term stability at the cost of weakening Western cohesion and straining transatlantic ties.
The Middle East presents an even more volatile challenge. The Israel–Iran–Hamas axis highlights a core contradiction of Trump’s foreign policy: unequivocal political backing for Israel paired with a deep aversion to prolonged military entanglements. In 2026, his priority will be to avoid a direct regional escalation with Iran, even if that means tolerating low-intensity conflicts and indirect negotiations. The strategy is one of containment rather than resolution—but any miscalculation could pull the United States into precisely the kind of conflict Trump has vowed to avoid.
Overlaying these pressures is the institutional front. As the term advances, the judiciary and federal apparatus show diminishing tolerance for permanent confrontation. Investigations, adverse rulings, or open clashes with federal agencies could erode Trump’s control and energize an opposition that blends political resistance with legal challenges.
Finally, 2026 raises an uncomfortable question even within Trump’s own movement: is he governing to close out a personal cycle, or to shape a lasting legacy? The absence of a clear successor figure turns that year into a landscape of internal maneuvering, where loyalty increasingly competes with ambition.
In short, Trump’s presidency enters its most demanding phase. The challenge is no longer to disrupt the system or attack it from the outside, but to sustain power, deliver results, and control the narrative within an institutional framework that will, sooner or later, demand accountability.
