The Erosion of Presidential Norms: How Trump’s “Full Flex” Reshapes Global Power and Domestic Control
The world is rapidly adjusting to a new reality: a U.S. presidency unbound by traditional constraints. It began not with a policy announcement, but with a spectacle – U.S. warplanes delivering Nicolás Maduro into custody. This wasn’t an isolated incident; it was a signal. A signal that the rules have changed, and that the limits of executive power are being aggressively tested, with potentially seismic consequences for both international stability and the foundations of American democracy.
From “America First” to Unilateral Action
Donald Trump’s initial foreign policy was often characterized by isolationist rhetoric. Yet, the events of early 2026 reveal a startling shift. The “one and done” strategy – swift, decisive military action – has become a favored tool, exemplified by the intervention in Venezuela and the prior bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities. This isn’t about avoiding entanglement; it’s about asserting dominance on his terms. The pursuit of Greenland, dismissed by many as eccentric, now represents a dangerous willingness to disregard established alliances and international law. Germany and the United Kingdom’s consideration of troop deployments to Greenland underscores the level of alarm within the NATO alliance.
This pivot isn’t simply about foreign policy. The domestic repercussions are equally concerning. The deployment of federal officers to cities that didn’t vote for him, the targeting of political opponents like Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, and the continued propagation of election disinformation all point to a president consolidating power at home, leveraging the perceived success of foreign interventions to justify increasingly authoritarian tactics. The Justice Department investigation into Powell, framed as “payback” for disagreeing on interest rates, is a chilling example of executive overreach, jeopardizing the independence of a critical institution.
The Extortionist Model and Resource Control
The situation in Venezuela is particularly revealing. Trump’s administration isn’t presenting a long-term plan for democratic reconstruction; it’s operating an “extortionist racket,” as critics describe it. The message is clear: access to Venezuela’s oil reserves is contingent on compliance with U.S. demands. The suggestion that Venezuela could become the 51st state, while seemingly outlandish, highlights the administration’s willingness to consider radical solutions to secure resource control. This approach, if replicated elsewhere – particularly in Iran or Cuba – could destabilize entire regions and create a new era of neo-colonialism.
The Domestic Backlash and the Fractured Base
Despite the outward display of confidence, Trump’s position is far from secure. His poll numbers remain low, and the Republican party is increasingly divided. While some lawmakers remain loyal, others are voicing concerns about the economic consequences of his policies and the erosion of democratic norms. Senator Thom Tillis’s blunt call to focus on domestic issues reflects a growing anxiety within the GOP. The ongoing Jeffrey Epstein controversy continues to cast a shadow, potentially fracturing the party further as more information comes to light.
The Economic Tightrope
The administration’s belated focus on affordability – with measures aimed at lowering prescription drug costs and mortgage rates – is a tacit acknowledgment of the growing economic anxieties among voters. However, these efforts are likely to be overshadowed by the broader perception of instability and the potential for escalating international conflicts. The long-term economic impact of alienating allies and disrupting global trade patterns remains a significant threat.
The Future of Executive Power: A Dangerous Precedent
The most significant takeaway from this period isn’t any single event, but the normalization of presidential overreach. Trump is demonstrating that the traditional checks and balances on executive power can be circumvented, and that international norms can be disregarded with impunity. This sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations, regardless of party affiliation. The concept of a “lame duck” president focusing on foreign policy is not new, but the sheer audacity and disregard for established protocols are unprecedented.
The question now is whether institutions – Congress, the courts, and the media – will effectively push back against this erosion of norms. The stakes are high. The future of American democracy, and the stability of the international order, may depend on it. The Council on Foreign Relations offers further analysis on the expansion of executive power.
What are your predictions for the future of U.S. foreign policy and the balance of power between the executive branch and other institutions? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
