Antonio Navalón
Life is always an unknown. Every time we start something new—a change of administrator, relationship, project, or chapter in our lives—we think we know how things will unfold. However, we never know the outcome of that new adventure or chapter.
Tomorrow, in Washington, on the National Mall and several degrees below zero, there is a repeat of a scene that has been a symbol of American democracy since 1800, when Thomas Jefferson assumed the presidency under the dome under construction on the Capitol. This time, Donald Trump is to be sworn in again as president of the United States.
The 47th and 45th president falls on the figure of the same person. Donald Trump repeats, now without surprise and without all the unknowns that there were in 2017 in his first term. It is not that today history begins. It is not that the new era begins. It is with this president and this administration that an era that can be characterized as the era of certainties begins.
For many years, we have been accumulating the consequences of our democratic system’s crisis. The inability to convince citizens that consolidating their freedoms was the only way to live in security has left democracies vulnerable.
For many years, we established the division of powers as the ideal and fairest system. We thought that some powers served to limit the excesses of other powers. For decades, it was believed that this scheme protected citizens from the excesses of power, especially the power exercised by the head of the executive branch. However, that structure has disappeared.
Looking at the global landscape today, it is evident that more and more governments are acting as absolute repositories of power. They no longer respect the balance of powers and, instead, concentrate the executive branch and all political control in their hands. This phenomenon is not exclusive to the United States; it has also occurred in countries such as Italy and threatens to spread to other countries such as France.
We are living in a time of significant change. The political dynamics we used to know are being replaced by others. However, this transition has a common characteristic, coinciding with Donald Trump’s return to the White House: it is a time of certainties.
You don’t have to be a magician or very smart to know that Donald Trump’s second term will not be a term where we can speculate. This time, there will be no surprises or astonishment. His mandate will be marked by disruptive bases and under a clear axis of action, where he and his team are positioned as the depositaries of power of the largest democracy in the world.
On March 21, 1947, during Harry Truman’s presidency, Congress amended the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, limiting the number of presidential terms to two. But what could stop Trump from organizing a referendum to amend this amendment?
His disruptive style and stance, which in a certain sense can be considered going against the Establishment, will allow him to break schemes without guilt. Add to that his strategic alliance—which we will see how long it lasts and how it develops—with characters like Elon Musk, and we can infer that his mandate will be characterized by disruptive elements and confrontation with some of the United States technological, economic, and financial powers.
With his vision of life as a video game, Musk has built an empire that includes providing satellite internet service and consolidating his “X” brand. His partnership with Trump introduces an unprecedented dynamic in American politics, directly confronting tech giants such as Apple, Google, and Meta. Such is the reach that this duo could achieve, and there is even speculation that the two could lead the first administration to take the United States to Mars.
In this new era, the great technological and financial world figures compete for supremacy. While Trump and Musk seem to have an edge, figures like Page, Gates, Bezos, and Zuckerberg also play a crucial role in this battle for power. One element that, although it might be insignificant, has its particular importance cannot be overlooked. This is the fact that unlike the big tech leaders mentioned above – and Trump included – Elon Musk is an American by naturalization, not by birth.
Internationally, Trump has made it clear that his priority is to “make America great again.” His rules are clear: He will do anything and take any action to lead his country to greatness and cut off and curtail the dreams of an empire that is not his own and growing in presence and importance in the world.
His protectionist policies, such as the imposition of all kinds of tariffs, seek to curb the expansion of China, which represents a direct threat to U.S. hegemony. This confrontation defines Trump’s global strategy, where he will not hesitate to use any tool at his disposal to preserve U.S. leadership.
In these times of certainties, we must assume and hope that the governments most affected by Trumpism’s first measures have taken advantage of this period to prepare for what is to come. While they may not have developed fully structured alternative policies, they should at least have devised lenitive strategies vis-à-vis U.S. interests.
For those who interpret, perhaps out of convenience, that phenomena such as the Greenland case could only come about through the use of military force, it is important to remember an essential historical point: much of the territory that today makes up the United States was incorporated thanks to the voluntary adherence of its inhabitants, facilitated by previous investments in their welfare. In this context, it is more realistic to think that, after the independence achieved by Greenland in 2008, any future change in its territorial integrity will require a new referendum. In this referendum, the more than 57,000 Greenlanders will have to decide whether to accept the conditions offered by the United States, including the passport and financial incentives that such a possible integration would entail.
This strategy and operation would differ from how the Americans took over territories such as California or New Mexico after the U.S. invasion of 1848. Greenland would be more similar to the acquisition of Florida and Louisiana by James Monroe and Thomas Jefferson. Let us not forget that there is already a precedent between Americans and Danes when, in 1917, Woodrow Wilson’s government paid 25 million dollars in gold to Denmark to acquire the Virgin Islands.
On the other hand, it seems that the CUSMA/USMCA/T-MEC has disappeared as a matter of fact. The CUSMA/USMCA/T-MEC is a partnership of three countries, two of which are currently highly weakened for different reasons. The one who is supposed to lead the trilateral agreement and relationship is currently in the midst of a kind of civil war and in a cycle that allows for the continuous creation of internal conflicts that seem to have no end.
Mexico, on the other hand, has a complex relationship with its northern neighbor. Although the CUSMA/USMCA/T-MEC remains in force, unilateral actions by the United States have weakened it. At the same time, the U.S. internal contradiction is evident: It needs immigration to sustain its economy but has made its fight against illegal immigration a public safety priority.
Of the novelties of this time of certainties, the most important is knowing that Trump 2.0 is not only much calmer than in his previous administration but is now much more dangerous. In addition, he has put together a team where he seems to be the most moderate.
An example of this is his Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth. With his tattoo on his arm with the motto “Deus Vult” (meaning “if such is God’s will”), which is the same motto used by the first crusades, he begins his own crusade. It is a crusade that not only involves depoliticizing – as he has said – the army but initially has the mission of ensuring efficient defense both internally and externally. In addition, he will have the difficult task of properly administering and managing the largest, most untouchable, and continually growing budget, which is the U.S. defense budget. Defense is a key pillar to regain the greatness the Trump administration aspires to.
In this scenario, the only certainty is that conflict is not a possibility but a reality. This administration begins immersed in confrontations, and the great unknown is whether it will escalate into a larger-scale conflict or whether it will be possible to maintain an increasingly fragile balance.
Further Reading: