Just ten days after Donald Trump’s inauguration for his second term, he made headlines by commuting the sentences of paramilitary members convicted of seditious conspiracy related to the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol. Many were left wondering how voters could support such actions and what they meant for the rule of law. Critics argued, as noted by Richarde Conville, professor emeritus of communication studies, "You got the Whole Trump, not just the sliver you voted for." This sentiment captures the rising unease among citizens about government accountability and the application of the law.
On January 20, 2025, Trump didn’t stop at commutations; he also pardoned those convicted of assaulting police officers during the Capitol riots. These actions, taken on his very first day back in office, have allowed many to see this as legitimizing political violence for personal gain. "The law...does not apply to those members of, e.g., The Proud Boys and The Oath Keepers," wrote Conville, reinforcing fears of unequal justice.
Ironically, just as Trump’s second term was beginning, Congress faced the looming threat of another government shutdown. Lawmakers had until March 14, 2025, to reach some form of agreement to avert disaster. Trump warned, “a government shutdown could happen” if the House of Representatives fails to act. Such uncertainty echoes back to previous shutdowns, including the third-longest one under Trump’s first administration, which lasted 35 days. The 2025 government shutdown could significantly impact federal programs and agencies, affecting services from air traffic controllerships to social security payments.
Federal employees were already contending with mass firings initiated by Trump and Elon Musk's administration, who have attempted to consolidate government power by cutting jobs across various agencies ostensibly to streamline operations. If Congress cannot pass funding measures, it will trigger a shutdown on March 16, 2025, leaving countless employees without pay, though it remains mandatory for Congress to approve back pay for federal workers after such events.
Reactions have varied across the political spectrum. While some Americans support the administration's bold trade policies, including sweeping tariffs on major U.S. trade partners, many are concerned about the transactional nature of Trump’s foreign policy approach. Trump’s tendency to redefine America’s role globally has alienated traditional allies, as he openly criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during one of their Oval Office meetings, framing America’s interests through the lens of transactional deals rather than long-standing alliances built over decades of diplomatic relations.
Trump's foreign policy starkly contrasts with the sentiments of previous Republican leaders who championed America’s role as the standard-bearer of democracy and global dialogue. "Trump aligns himself with America’s adversaries, as seen when he opposed the UN resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine," said R. Nicholas Burns, former ambassador to NATO and China. This approach leaves many questioning the future of American leadership worldwide, as evident from polling which shows Americans largely sympathize with Ukraine against its aggressor, Russia.
Meanwhile, within the Republican Party, divisions have emerged between traditionalists who lament the shift from Reagan-era ideals toward one marked by populist nationalism, economic protectionism, and unilateralism. Some argue Trump’s policies reflect necessary shifts to protect American interests; others, particularly former officials and party leaders, see the need to reassess America's role on the global stage and advocate for coalition-building and support for embattled democracies around the world.
For example, former Senator Chuck Hagel remarked, "It’s exactly the opposite of what Ronald Reagan was about"; reinforcing the notion of Reagan’s steadfast belief in alliances as integral to American strength. During his administration, the focus was on collaboration and shared values rather than confrontational diplomacy. Critics argue Trump’s deals undermine decades of diplomacy initiated by his predecessors and threaten to isolate the U.S. on the world stage.
On the home front, local leaders fear the consequences of Trump and his administration's approach. For those with ties to Ukraine, like Scranton Mayor Paige Gebhardt Cognetti, the threat of the U.S. turning its back on its allies is particularly alarming. “It’s really a personal affront here,” she said, reflecting community sentiments about maintaining global partnerships.
This broad concern is echoed by Americans across the political spectrum who recognize the risks associated with Trump’s governing style. Karen Curry, who switched her support from Trump to Vice President Kamala Harris, expressed her fears saying, “If we continue down this path, I don’t think we’re going to be the leaders of the free world.”
The question remains: how will Congress navigate the imminent government shutdown, and what impact will Trump's policies have longer-term on national and international stability? Can the balance between bold unilateral decisions and the need for cooperation across global lines be maintained? The stakes are high, and with public pressure mounting, the outcome of such political maneuvers could reshape the federal government’s interaction with both its employees and international counterparts for years to come.