With the first anniversary of Donald Trump’s second term approaching, the phrase “Tariffs, Trade, and Tantrums” has come to encapsulate the governing style of the 47th President of the United States. Less than a month before completing year one, Trump’s return to the White House has unfolded in a manner that even seasoned observers describe as unusually volatile, unconventional, and disruptive, with three years of his mandate still ahead.

From the outset, Trump’s second presidency has been marked by a rejection of traditional protocol and institutional restraint. Legal challenges, courtroom battles, and executive overreach have been recurring features, as the administration has prioritised speed over procedure and pressure over persuasion. Deals, whether related to trade, ceasefires, or punitive economic measures, have taken precedence over doctrine or long-term strategy. Analysts broadly agree that this governing formula has now solidified into a recognisable model.

Experts argue that the past year has fundamentally altered both America’s domestic climate and its external posture. While the United States continues to be a central global actor, its reliability, consistency, and leadership image have suffered, even as Trump continues to brand himself as a “Peace President.” According to foreign affairs expert Robinder Sachdev, the first year of the second term has been defined by high impact and high velocity, driven by careful preparation, a cabinet built on loyalty, and an unprecedented reliance on executive authority. West Asia strategist Waiel Awwad, meanwhile, describes the administration’s behaviour as overtly coercive, producing a mix of limited successes and growing backlash, and blurring the distinction between ally and adversary into a purely transactional relationship.

Broadly, Trump’s first year back in office can be assessed across six key pillars. These include the use of tariffs as a primary foreign policy tool, immigration enforcement as a form of political theatre, unresolved controversies such as the Epstein files, ambitious but fragile claims of peacemaking, a highly transactional diplomatic approach, particularly towards India, and the acceleration of a multipolar global order in which US authority is increasingly contested. Together, these elements illustrate how disruption has become a defining operational principle of the administration.

Tariffs have emerged as the cornerstone of Trump’s second-term statecraft. Introduced swiftly and often without warning, they have been presented as remedies for trade deficits, fiscal imbalances, and even international conflicts. Sachdev identifies four core objectives behind this strategy: correcting what Trump sees as decades of unfair treatment, generating direct revenue for the US Treasury, protecting key domestic political constituencies, and forcing foreign companies to invest on American soil. He emphasises that this approach was intentional and calculated, not impulsive, and has yielded outcomes that Washington believes could prove beneficial over time.

“He had three or four objectives in mind with regard to tariffs. One is that he had a lifelong belief that other nations have taken unfair advantage of America. Second is his one global defining mark this year, which was the money that they would collect. It was positioned that tariffs will bring money into the US government treasury,” Sachdev, author of Trumpotopia, said.

Sachdev added that Trump’s enthusiasm for tariffs intensified once he recognised their usefulness in what he frames as peace diplomacy. “Third, they had money; some money will be given to the industry, which has been affected, which is a political dole-out. Lastly, he would compel other countries to invest in America. In totality, he has succeeded in some of it,” he said. “Trump started liking tariffs even more when he realised that by making threats of tariffs, he can bring about peace,” Sachdev added, referring to disputed claims involving India-Pakistan and Thailand-Cambodia.

The White House points to investment announcements from the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Gulf countries and others, amounting to USD 9.6 trillion, as proof of success, even though Trump himself has claimed figures closer to or exceeding USD 20 trillion. Critics, however, argue that this strategy has come at a cost. Awwad notes that Trump has himself acknowledged that tariffs pushed India closer to China and Russia. “He acknowledged that he lost India to China and Russia because of his tariff imposed on India. So I think that harsh measure he’s been trying to give does not give good leadership,” Awwad said. He added that imposing tariffs on both allies and adversaries has reinforced perceptions of a bullying, cowboy-style diplomacy.

On the domestic front, immigration enforcement has been the defining issue. The administration has carried out highly visible raids, arrests, and deportations designed to demonstrate control and deterrence. According to Sachdev, this approach was deliberately performative. “When initially in ICE, they were rounding up people and all. Videos were made, and the videos were circulated inside America itself, within the MAGA,” he said. “They did to make it visible. They ordered that all the agents who go to arrest any immigrant should go in special jackets with big ICE letters on the back and should have a minimum of five cars with sirens blaring.”

Daily arrest quotas and aggressive tactics have triggered widespread legal challenges across the country. The administration has set a target of one million deportations within the first year, with Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller advocating for around 3,000 arrests per day. Sachdev argues that the social impact has been deeply divisive. “Fundamentally, American culture used to be known as a melting pot. Unfortunately, what has happened in America now has become a boxing ring,” he said, describing mutual fear between MAGA supporters and liberals.

Awwad warns that public frustration is growing, driven by concerns over healthcare access, crime, and the perception that public funds are prioritised for foreign commitments over domestic needs. “America is heading for a civil war under his leadership rather than stabilisation,” he said, pointing to rising resentment.

In September, Trump also targeted skilled immigration by reshaping the H-1B visa programme. A new proclamation introduced a USD 100,000 fee for all new H-1B applications, significantly raising the cost for companies and individuals seeking to hire or work in specialised roles requiring at least a bachelor’s degree. The move was framed as protecting American jobs.

Another major controversy stemmed from Trump’s repeated campaign promises to release documents related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. While the issue resonated strongly with the MAGA base, the administration’s reluctance and delays in releasing the files backfired. Cabinet appointments based on loyalty rather than experience slowed the process, triggering backlash. Attorney General Pam Bondi faced intense criticism following a joint Department of Justice and FBI memo stating there was no Epstein “client list” and reaffirming his 2019 death by suicide.

“The cabinet that he appointed have been absolutely, totally his loyalists,” Sachdev said, contrasting this with Trump’s first term. Congressional pressure led to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and in December hundreds of thousands of documents were released. These revealed a past friendship between Epstein and Trump, though no criminal wrongdoing by the President was alleged. Nonetheless, the episode fuelled distrust and frustration among supporters.

Trump has continued to market himself as a peacemaker, relying on pressure rather than traditional diplomacy. Tariffs, sanctions, and threats have been portrayed as tools to force negotiations. However, experts question the durability of such peace. Ceasefires, including in Gaza, have remained fragile, while other conflicts have resisted external coercion. “You cannot impose peace by force,” Awwad said, arguing that Trump lacks the historical understanding needed to resolve deep-rooted disputes.

The failure to end the war in Ukraine has been a particularly damaging blow to Trump’s peace narrative. Despite campaign pledges to stop what he called “Biden’s War,” efforts stalled after a failed Alaska summit with Vladimir Putin in August. A proposed 20-point plan was rejected by Moscow, and Trump has since said there is no deadline for a deal, even after meeting President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Relations with India illustrate the contradictions of Trump’s transactional diplomacy. Initial warmth gave way to tension over tariffs, mediation claims with Pakistan, and the cancellation of a planned visit for the Quad summit. A 50 percent tariff on Indian exports and perceived US favour towards Pakistan strained ties. Awwad noted that New Delhi’s insistence on protecting food, energy, and strategic autonomy clashed with Trump’s pressure tactics. Sachdev suggested relations may stabilise once trade disputes settle, but both agree India is recalibrating towards a multipolar approach.

Globally, Trump’s assertive style has accelerated the shift towards a multipolar order. Trust in US leadership has eroded, prompting countries to diversify alliances through forums such as BRICS and the G20. “Internationally, his image is tarnished, and America got more isolated,” Awwad said.

One year into Trump’s second term, the record is mixed but undeniably consequential. Tariffs have reshaped trade, immigration enforcement has been relentless, and transactional diplomacy has delivered short-term leverage. Yet the costs include strained alliances, reduced predictability, and declining goodwill. As Trump enters year two, the central question is no longer about disruption itself, but whether this approach can deliver lasting results in a world increasingly adjusting to a Trump-shaped order.