FROM THE OUTSIDE | Trump: His strength and his problem

It’s a script without ideology that populist leaders of all stripes have used and continue to use.

The latest example: President Donald Trump.

One might argue that upon returning to the presidency for a second term on January 20—after a four-year hiatus caused by an electoral defeat in 2020, which he still seems to struggle to fully accept—he had no greater need than to claim economic victory as his own and, like many of his predecessors, ride the wave of an ongoing recovery to persuade voters that prosperity was due to his leadership.

It’s basic politics; so much so that, according to U.S. analysts, it was the strategy he pursued during his first term.

However, some, such as Democrat Taegan Goddard, argue that this time he opted for revenge rather than embracing an optimistic message. Instead of promoting hope, he pushed the boundaries of his authority.

Trump, driven by either conviction or fear, is the actual owner of the Republican Party, which now possesses narrow majorities in both houses of Congress and sufficient influence to sway the judiciary in his favor.

This grants him significant power—enough that he currently seems to prevail in the ongoing struggle between the executive and legislative branches. Already, there are demands for Congress to restore its authority over public spending decisions.

Trump and his supporters assert that his victory on November 6, 2024, provides him with a significant popular mandate. While he did not exceed 50% of the popular vote, he achieved a decisive win in the Electoral College with a score of 312 to 226, successfully electing him as president.

Since assuming office on January 20, Trump has maintained that he has a mandate to overpower Congress and exert extensive influence over the judiciary. His critics are frequently branded as traitors and obstructionists and have even faced threats from those who claim to support the president.

However, it’s important to remember a recent analysis by political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way, who stated:

“Authoritarian leaders inflict the greatest harm when they have widespread public backing. Bukele, Chávez, Fujimori, and Russia’s Vladimir Putin possessed approval ratings exceeding 80% during the initiation of their authoritarian takeovers.”

“Such strong backing allows leaders to secure supermajorities in legislation or achieve decisive referenda outcomes—strategies that facilitate the implementation of reforms reinforcing autocratic governance. Furthermore, this support discourages challenges from internal party adversaries, judges, and a substantial portion of the opposition.”

“The risk lies in how populist strongmen can exploit their popularity to manipulate institutions, alter regulations, and effortlessly consolidate their power.”