US Politics

As the nation prepares for a second Donald Trump presidency, some history-minded people may seek understanding in the idea that it wasn’t until Richard Nixon’s second presidential term that the serious consequences arrived.

But as a scholar of American politics, I don’t think that’s the right parallel.

Trump has already faced most of the situations that brought down Nixon – a congressional investigation and federal prosecutors’ inquiries.

Trump has survived by – consciously or not – following the example of another American president who created a political party in his own image and used it to rule almost unchecked: Andrew Jackson, whose portrait Trump hung in the Oval Office during his first term.

Unlike Nixon, Trump outlasted investigations

Richard Nixon was reelected by an Electoral College landslide in 1972 in the midst of the Watergate scandal, in which people affiliated with Nixon’s reelection campaign broke into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee and then sought to cover up their actions. Although Nixon started off his second term with sky-high approval, his demise soon followed.

A Senate special committee investigating the Watergate break-in was established just 18 days after his inauguration in January 1973. By the summer of 1974, evidence of Nixon’s involvement in the Watergate crimes had become overwhelming. In an Aug. 7, 1974, visit to the White House, Republican congressional leaders asked the president to step down. He announced his decision to resign the following day, Aug. 8, 1974.

Trump, however, has already weathered numerous legal battles, investigations and controversies. From the Jan. 6 committee to special prosecutor Jack Smith’s probes and the Mar-a-Lago documents case, Trump’s political career has been marked by repeated confrontations with legal and political institutions – including two impeachments by the House, though both were rejected by the Senate.

The House Jan. 6 committee announced four recommended charges against Donald Trump, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S.
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

After the Republican Party’s loss in 2020 and an underwhelming performance in the 2022 midterms, many within the GOP urged Trump to step aside to allow for a new generation of leaders. But Trump held firm.

Investigations stalled or were delayed, giving him breathing room through to the 2024 election. Now, with his his return to the White House, Trump will almost certainly end the federal investigations, and there’s little sign that state cases will press forward soon.

In recent years, historical revisionism – popularized by Tucker Carlson – has taken place within segments of the Republican Party. Under this view, Nixon wasn’t ousted for his involvement in Watergate but rather was the victim of a system aligned against him. But where Nixon stepped aside, Trump has fought back.

Like Jackson, Trump reshaped his party

In many ways, though, Trump more closely resembles Jackson than the scandal-plagued Nixon.

Following his narrow defeat in the controversial 1824 election, Jackson, much like Trump would two centuries later, claimed the election had been stolen.

Jackson seized on his supporters’ frustrations, reorganizing the Democratic-Republican Party, which ultimately rebranded itself as the Democratic Party, in his own image. His followers championed his cause, creating state and local Democratic parties and building a powerful grassroots movement.

As a result, the Democratic Party democratized its nomination process, moving from elite-driven congressional caucuses that chose candidates behind closed doors to well-attended party conventions. This shift allowed voters to participate directly in the candidate selection process.

The new Jacksonian Democratic Party not only aligned with his views but also introduced a wave of increased political participation. Through what became known as the “spoils system,” Jackson rewarded loyalists by appointing them to government positions, ensuring that his allies held key roles in federal and state institutions. This approach allowed Jackson to implement his agenda more effectively, while also mobilizing his supporters at all levels of government, integrating them into the workings of American politics in unprecedented numbers.

When he won election in 1828, Jackson’s efforts created a political landscape that gave him broad power, including actions that bypassed institutional checks.

For instance, Jackson’s forced removal and relocation of Native American communities from their ancestral lands – the “Trail of Tears” – illustrated the dangers inherent when a president holds extensive unilateral power.

Jackson disregarded judicial decisions and public outcry, acting with executive authority that appeared unconstrained. An 1832 Supreme Court ruling – Worcester v. Georgia – established tribal sovereignty, yet Jackson refused to enforce the ruling and the displacement of the Cherokee people continued.

His restructured party and control over appointments allowed him to act with what seemed near-total impunity. Jackson demonstrated his power by vetoing the renewal of the charter for the Second Bank of the United States, then unilaterally directing the removal of federal deposits despite congressional support for the bank.

A short film made by the Cherokee Nation with the National Park Service tells the tale of the Trail of Tears.

Likewise, Trump has reshaped the Republican Party. His influence has been evident in Republican primary contests, where candidates aligned with Trump’s vision succeeded, and opponents – the so-called “Never Trumpers” and “RINOs” – found themselves pushed to the margins.

This transformation has not been confined to rhetoric but is visible in the composition of state legislatures and in Congress, solidifying a pro-Trump ideology that extends to party policies and priorities. This shift gives Trump a firm foundation from which he can pursue his agenda.

Furthermore, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court has, in effect, become a guardian of the political revolution Trump has spearheaded, granting the executive substantial powers and legal protection.

What to look for next

But there are limits to what Trump can achieve, even with his strengthened position.

Unlike in Jackson’s era, today’s federal bureaucracy is a vast, entrenched institution, with checks in place that may challenge or obstruct executive overreach. Some of Trump’s promises – particularly around immigration policy, social welfare reform and trade – are likely to encounter resistance, not only from Democratic opposition but also from civil servants and legal processes embedded within federal agencies.

However, Trump has said he wants to substantially remake that federal bureaucracy, replacing experienced career public servants with political appointees aligned with Trump himself.

Donald Trump’s return to office likely signals an end to at least some of the yearslong investigations into his past actions and ensures his hold over the Republican Party remains intact. With a loyal base of voters and supportive institutions, Trump is positioned to further reshape the American political system. More

Like many women, I’m having a horrible flashback. It’s 6 a.m. on Nov. 9, 2016 — the day after the United States presidential election that pitted Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump. I went to bed assuming Clinton had won.

I remember thinking to myself on the night of that election that there was nothing to be worried about. Americans would do the right thing and vote for the most qualified person, not the reality TV star. I came into the dining room where my partner was sitting reading the news and looked at him hopefully when he told me, still in shock: “Trump won.”

Read more:
The real reason Trump won: White fright

I was wrong eight years ago and I was wrong today about Vice President Kamala Harris’s chances of beating Trump.

I hoped the polls were wrong and the race was not as close as it appeared to be in the swing states. I believed women would come out in droves to protect their reproductive rights. I hoped and assumed that white women, in particular, would turn out for Harris en masse. That was a false hope.

Trump has been declared the winner of the 2024 presidential election after handily winning several swing states. He’s also on track to win the popular vote, something he failed to do in ’16. In fact, he has done better with almost all demographics in 2024 than he did in 2020.

Voters cast their ballots in Indianapolis on Nov. 5, 2024 in the heavily Republican state of Indiana.
(AP Photo/Michael Conroy)

Tight race

It was a hard-fought battle and, according to the polls, neck and neck right up until the final days of the campaign.

In hindsight, several questions have been answered that were not so clear just a day ago. Will America vote for a Black woman? No. Will Harris be able to do what Clinton couldn’t do eight years ago? No. Will she break the Oval Office glass ceiling? No.

The fact that these questions were still in play in 2024, as Harris waged a disciplined campaign against an opponent as flawed and felonious as Trump, seems revelatory about the misogyny and racism that bedevils America.

Vice President Kamala Harris speaks during a campaign rally outside the Philadelphia Museum of Art on Nov. 4, 2024, in Philadelphia.
(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Gender played an outsized role in the election for several reasons. The overturning of Roe v Wade in June 2022 galvanized women across the U.S., especially when the deaths of several women after being refused pregnancy or miscarriage-related health care illustrated the consequences of these extreme anti-choice positions.

Concerns about women’s reproductive rights and Trump’s casual dismissal of sexualized violence seemingly gave women, young and old, a cause to embrace.

A survey in Iowa conducted by vaunted pollster Ann Selzer showed women 65 and older were voting for Harris by a two to one margin, though Trump ended up winning the state.

TikTok videos showing Trump’s infamous “grab them by the pussy” comments went viral among young TikTokers who weren’t old enough to remember when the remarks originally surfaced in 2016. They spoke of their astonishment that their fathers and anyone with daughters, sisters or mothers could vote for such a person.

But it was not enough, even though exit polls suggested a majority of women cast their ballots for Harris. Women apparently preferred Harris, but not by the margins her campaign had hoped.

Trump’s allure to men

On the other side of the gender equation are men. Trump’s appeal to young men increased as their apparent fears of being overtaken by women’s gains in equality were exploited.

This is a disturbing trend. According to a September NBC poll, women backed the Democrats 58 per cent to 37 per cent, while men supported Republicans 52 per cent to 40 per cent. Research has shown that young women have become more liberal while young men have become more conservative, perhaps because they are angry at falling behind and losing their former advantages.

The candidates themselves recognized the differences in support with their choices of podcasts and media appearances. Trump spent three hours with Joe Rogan — who subsequently endorsed him — for his podcast that skews heavily towards young men while Harris went on Call Her Daddy, a podcast directed at women under 35.

In the end, the U.S. voted for what is called “hegemonic masculinity,” a cultural valorization of stereotypical male traits, and Trump’s endless and regressive belittling of women and “feminine” men won the day.

Donald Trump waves to the crowd after speaking at a campaign rally in Grand Rapids, Mich., on Nov. 5, 2024.
(AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)

The impact of white women

Another key factor in the campaign was race.

Exit polls suggested white women without college educations overwhelmingly voted for Trump, while white college-educated women cast their ballots for Harris.

Prior to the election, most white women said they backed the Republican Party, but suggestions their support for Trump was wavering now seem unfounded. Exit polls suggest Harris didn’t perform as well with women voters as Joe Biden did in 2020.

We don’t have the final numbers yet in terms of how white women in swing states ultimately cast their ballots, but they probably weren’t good. Democrats ran videos, one narrated by actress Julia Roberts, pointing out the obvious constitutional guarantee that women have the right to vote any way they wanted to — and that what happens in the ballot box should stay in the ballot box.

The backlash against these ads was illuminating, suggesting there are still many men who think their wives should vote the way their husbands do and that it’s a betrayal if they don’t — and perhaps Trump’s win suggests their wives agreed.

The loss of reproductive freedom was evidently not enough for white women to go against their race, their class interests — or possibly their husbands.

Black, Latino men

The other racial factor in the campaign was the perception of the dwindling support for Harris from Black and Latino men. Trump also increased his share of the Latino vote.

And according to a New York Times poll, while Obama was supported by 93 per cent of Black Americans in 2008 and Biden was supported by 90 per cent in 2020, support had fallen to 73 per cent for Harris in 2024.

Is this the result of sexism or internalized misogyny? Could Black men not bring themselves to vote for a Black woman?

Barack Obama’s plea to Black men certainly seems to suggest a problem with sexism within that cohort of voters.

Former U.S. president Barack Obama speaks at a campaign rally in support of Kamala Harris on Oct. 28, 2024, in Philadelphia.
(AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

After the 2016 election, the American Psychological Association coined the anxiety around the election results as election stress disorder.

That stress has returned as the world now watches what will happen as Trump, with no guardrails, no checks and balances in place and billionaires by his side, attempts to remake America in his own authoritarian image. More

Trying to predict what Donald Trump will do during a second term in office is a fool’s errand.

It is all the more challenging considering Trump has prioritised winning re-election far more than discussing a detailed policy agenda. In many ways, Kamala Harris had the same strategy of maintaining an ambiguous policy agenda, though to obviously lesser success.

With that said, Trump comes back to the White House after not only four years of a prior tenure in the Oval Office, but also an additional four years since leaving office. These many years in the public eye may not tell us exactly what he will do, but they do give us an indication of his priorities.

Trump’s ambiguous policy agenda

Many point to Trump’s policy agenda as lacking both consistency and coherence.

On one hand, he has touted his Supreme Court nominees for overturning Roe v Wade. On the other, he shied away from talking about abortion on the campaign trail and encouraged fellow Republicans not to legislate conservative restrictions.

On one hand, many of his top advisors from his first term in office wrote the exceedingly conservative and controversial Project 2025 manifesto. On the other, he has distanced himself from it and the people who wrote it, saying he had never even read the document.

And on one hand, Elon Musk, one of Trump’s biggest supporters and financial backers, has claimed he could cut the size of government, government spending and even a number of federal agencies. On the other hand, most economists have said the Trump campaign’s economic agenda would dramatically expand the federal deficit more than Harris’ proposed policies.

It should be noted, however, there definitely is one area where Trump has never wavered: trade.

Trump has maintained a protectionist stance for many decades, so we can expect
consistency here. However, it remains unclear how much his Republican colleagues from rural parts of America will support such protectionist policies.

The agenda for a ‘dictator on day one’

The most well-known – and probably the most infamous – of Trump’s promises for his return to the White House was his statement about being a dictator “only on day one”.

This quote became a well-known part of the Biden and Harris campaigns’ stump speeches against Trump. It’s perhaps less well-known what exactly he would do.

He initially pledged to immediately close the border with Mexico and expand drilling for fossil fuels. On the campaign trail, he broadened his first-day priorities to also include:

firing Special Counsel Jack Smith, who has charged Trump in two federal cases

pardoning some of the rioters imprisoned after the January 6 2021 riots

beginning mass deportations for the estimated 11 million people living in the United States without legal immigration status
and ending what he has called “Green New Deal atrocities” within President Joe Biden’s framework for tackling climate change.

Trump also, in a surprise to immigration activists, said he would also “automatically” give non-citizens in the country permanent residency when they graduate from college.

What about his Cabinet?

The old adage that “personnel is policy” applies to Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

When Biden appointed Kurt Campbell to lead the White House’s Indo-Pacific efforts on the National Security Council, the move made clear that an “allies and partners” approach would define his administration’s policy in Asia.

And when Trump appointed Mike Pence to be his running mate in 2016, it made clear to traditional Republicans that Trump would have a “Republican insider” in an influential position in his administration.

Trump has made clear that Musk and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will play sizeable roles in his administration, but it remains unclear exactly what they will do.

Musk has promised to cut government regulation and red tape and Kennedy has pledged to “Make America Healthy Again”. On a practical level, however, it’s still too early to tell what type of role the two celebrities will have – particularly given Trump cabinet appointees will require Senate confirmation.

Trump and Kennedy have grown closer in recent months.
Evan Vucci/AP

While the Republicans are going to control the Senate again, this doesn’t guarantee it will support his appointees. A slim Republican majority in the Senate in 2017 did not support all of Trump’s agenda.

The high staff turnover that defined Trump’s first term of office may once again define his second term. There was also sometimes little coherence between his appointments. For example, Trump national security advisors Michael Flynn and John Bolton had little in common beyond a shared antagonism for the Obama administration’s policies.

At the same time, deputy national security advisor Matt Pottinger ultimately stayed for nearly the entirety of the Trump administration. He not only led much of Trump’s strategic policies toward Asia, but also defined the term “strategic competition”, which will likely outlast both the Biden and Trump administrations.

The more things change, the more they stay the same

Ultimately, if Trump’s second term in office is anything like his first term, then the prognostication about his policy agenda and personnel appointments will continue for some time.

It’s therefore less valuable to guess what Trump will do than to focus on the long-term structural trends that would have continued regardless of who is in the White House.

After all, the Biden administration maintained or sought to expand man of the Trump administration’s efforts abroad, including his “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” policy, tariffs, and the Abraham Accords that normalised relations between Israel and several Arab states.

At home, the Biden administration built on Trump policies that included government support for domestic manufacturing, expansion of the Child Tax Credit and increasing restrictions on large technology firms.

And furthermore, even a Harris administration would have been unlikely to view China as a fair economic partner, deploy US troops to the Middle East, or oppose NATO allies increasing their defence spending.

Trump will undoubtedly remain unpredictable and unconventional, but it would be a mistake to think there are not clear areas of continuity that began before Trump and will continue long after him. More