For the past two years, national leaders, their officials and experts around the globe have tried to work out what the second coming of Donald Trump would mean for them and the world. Predicting what the unpredictable US president would do defeated their best efforts.
They have now – finally – got some answers, as the only convicted felon to serve in the White House was sworn in as the 47th US president to complete his astonishing comeback.
His inaugural address in the US Capitol rotunda displayed a 78-year-old in a hurry. Although even his domestic critics acknowledge his mandate after last November’s election, his majority in the House of Representatives and possibly even the Senate might disappear in midterm elections in November 2026.
The president immediately deployed his power to act without congressional approval, by announcing some of the executive orders he will sign. He declared a border emergency, directed US troops to assist with US-Mexico border security and designated Mexico’s drug cartels as “foreign terrorist organisations”.
He announced a national energy emergency to fulfil his pledge to “drill baby, drill” for oil and gas. “An external revenue service” would raise “massive amounts of money” to collect tariffs, duties and revenues, which will send shivers around the world – though there was no detail.
Promising a “golden age of America”, Mr Trump declared that after the assassination attempt which ripped through his ear, he believed he had been “saved by God to make America great again”.
In a long attack on “the woke agenda”, he regrettably vowed the US government would recognise only two genders – male and female. On foreign policy, he promised to be a “peacemaker and unifier” and yet vowed to take back the Panama Canal from Panama.
An emboldened Mr Trump seems to have a radical plan and to have learnt lessons from the chaos of his first term: remarkably, only 8 per cent of his initial White House appointments lasted until its end and some 14 cabinet members departed, twice as many as under any other president in the past 50 years.
This time, he has surrounded himself with soulmates and close allies who are unlikely to try to thwart his wishes or talk him out of what he wants to do.
Although we hope he is wiser as well as older, there is no guarantee. Diplomats speak of “good Trump” and “bad Trump”. The good version undoubtedly played a role in getting the fragile ceasefire in Gaza over the line, though it suited Mr Trump to do so before he took office. We hope he tries to build on this by ensuring the temporary ceasefire becomes permanent and expending energy on a wider Middle East settlement.
There are mixed signals from the Trump camp about whether this would require a two-state solution but it must; it is hard to see how Mr Trump would persuade Saudi Arabia to normalise relations with Israel unless a Palestinian state is on the table.
Unfortunately, “bad Trump” can destabilise America’s true allies, including the UK. For example, repeating his first-term threat to pull out of Nato unless European nations raise their defence spending would give comfort to Vladimir Putin, who revels in divisions in the West.
Let us hope Mr Trump sees the logic of the argument, made by European leaders including Sir Keir Starmer, to bolster Ukraine’s defences before any peace negotiations so Volodymyr Zelensky enters them in the strongest possible position.
The new president must ensure his economic policies, such as tax cuts, do not fuel the inflation that inflicted so much political damage on the Democratic Party, and drive up global interest rates. Such an outcome would damage the UK’s hopes of securing the economic growth vital to the Starmer government’s project.
The Independent thinks Sir Keir’s pragmatic approach to handling the new president is right. He should resist pressure from those urging him to “stand up” to Mr Trump and ignore the unhelpful noises from Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, who warned of a “resurgent fascism”.
Sir Ed Davey has nothing to lose by positioning his Liberal Democrats as the only party that will stand up to Mr Trump, but Sir Keir must live in the real world where compromises must be made and deals struck with a president who, as Germany’s Angela Merkel recalled in her memoirs, “judged everything from the perspective of the property entrepreneur he had been before politics”.
However distasteful his sense of morality and unpalatable some of his actions might be, there is little for the UK to gain by pillorying the president. Sir Keir should avoid looking too needy or fawning – striking a balance can be hard to find, but foreign secretary David Lammy set the right tone in turning from his previous comments about the president, towards pragmatism.
The prime minister should stand his ground when necessary. For example, he should not allow Mr Trump to divert him from his vital goal to reduce friction with the EU to boost UK growth; his immediate aim should be to get as close to the EU as possible without crossing Labour’s “red lines” – not rejoining the single market or customs union.
It will be better for Sir Keir to acknowledge disagreements with Mr Trump – on climate change, for example – while remembering the big picture: a close relationship on defence, security and intelligence that has survived presidents and prime ministers of all colours. Indeed, world leaders would be wise to hold their nerve and not overreact to what Mr Trump says he will do; normally, better to wait until he does it.
One lesson from his first term is much of what he promises is merely performative – as his recent musings on Greenland may prove – and that he soon moves on to the next headline-grabber. But given the damage Mr Trump could wreak, the rest of the world has little alternative but to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
