For ardent supporters, it’s a long-anticipated victory, a “Make America Great Again” revival, while critics recoil at the reality of his return

He’s back. Brace yourselves: Donald Trump is set to reclaim the White House as the 47th President of the United States. He would become the first president since Grover Cleveland in 1892 to serve two terms that were not consecutive. Love him or loathe him, this moment is nothing short of historic. For his supporters, it’s a long-awaited reckoning; for his critics, it’s a nightmare realised. Hollywood elites—George Clooney, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Oprah Winfrey among them—are likely stewing in disbelief, unable to reconcile with the stark message that America is prepared to usher in another Trump era. Meanwhile, personalities like Megyn Kelly and Tucker Carlson bask in the triumph of what they perceive as the return of their “Messiah,” the man who vowed to Make America Great Again.

This is democracy in action, like it or not. In his first victory speech, Trump wasted no time hammering home his agenda: “I will not let my supporters down,” he declared. “America’s future will be bigger, better, bolder, richer, safer, and stronger than it has ever been.” Bold words, indeed. Yet the question hangs—what will the cost of ‘greatness’ be in a nation this divided? This time, he returns stronger, fortified by allies like Elon Musk, while other titans—Jeff Bezos, for one—strive to remain neutral.

Yet the fallout is profound. Influential voices such as Robert Kagan, a staunch advocate of liberal internationalism and husband of the American diplomat Victoria Nuland, have resigned, signalling that the ground is shifting. For mainstream media—outlets like The New York Times, NBC, and CNN—the election results are a rebuke they cannot ignore. These media powerhouses, which for years wielded narratives against Trump, now face a public that feels increasingly alienated from the polished, elitist stories they’ve been fed. The trust gap widens as citizens see the chasm between elite narratives and their lived realities.Trump’s second term will likely turn a blind eye to the domestic affairs of other nations, signalling potential cuts in funding to so-called civil society organisations and other international interests maintained by the US State Department and its clandestine bodies. Immigration policy, too, could see a harsher edge, as tensions over border security and the influx of immigrants under Biden intensify.

This stricter stance could stoke the fires of domestic unrest as Americans grapple with yet another transformation of national priorities.The war in Ukraine may come to an end sooner rather than later, potentially through a bitter compromise with Russia, as many countries in Europe may not align with Trump as they did under the Biden administration.

However, if Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has a different understanding of the situation, it may be time for him to seriously consider pursuing the Chinese peace proposal. Meanwhile, the conflict in West Asia is likely to pause, but tensions could rise, possibly leading to new forms of attacks on Iran. The relationship between Iran and the Trump administration will be crucial in determining the future scenario in West Asia, as decisions made in this context could significantly alter the region’s geopolitical dynamics. One should not forget that it was during Trump’s first administration that Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian military officer who served in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, was assassinated in Baghdad, Iraq, using a reaper drone (Predator B). Soleimani was a key enabler of Iranian actions, and even now, he is widely regarded as a major influence in Iran and its alliances.

On the home front, the controversial Project 2025 blueprint stands as a bold bid to remodel US government institutions in line with a nationalist, ultra-conservative vision.

Critics warn of an authoritarian slide. Trump himself claimed he had “no hand in the policy,” even as his campaign speeches echoed its themes. Dismantling regulatory agencies, installing ideologically driven personnel, and consolidating executive power—such moves could test the very checks and balances that underpin the American system.

The potential cost? A dramatic weakening of civil liberties, environmental protections, and democratic norms, is likely to spark deep political divisions and civil unrest.If realised, this vision would also redefine America’s role on the global stage.

The “America First” doctrine, which shaped Trump’s prior foreign policy, may once again destabilise multilateral efforts on urgent issues like climate change, nuclear disarmament, and trade.

Trump’s rhetoric could erode US alliances, and as Washington retreats from the mantle of democracy promotion, a vacuum forms—one that China, no doubt, is eager to fill.Worth noting is Trump’s first note during his visit to the CIA headquarters, right after becoming the 45th president.

Mainstream narratives often painted him as dismissive of the intelligence apparatus, but Trump’s note challenged that view, acknowledging the agency’s importance. Now, as political winds shift, Trump is rumoured to be eyeing Kash Patel, an Indian-American with roots in counterterrorism and intelligence reform, as his new CIA head. Patel’s controversial stance on challenging the so-called “deep state” marks a radical shift in US intelligence policy—likely a step towards Trump’s broader agenda of power consolidation within the federal government.

Patel, known for his book Government Gangsters: The Deep State, the Truth, and the Battle for Our Democracy, is expected to tackle intelligence reform head-on, aligning with Trump’s vision of shaking up entrenched power structures.

A second Trump administration would also stoke tensions with China, particularly in the Indo-Pacific, where US-China rivalry is reaching new heights. Trump’s hawkish stance on Taiwan and the South China Sea could signal increased military presence, arms deals, and strengthened alliances with Japan, South Korea and India.

The administration is likely to challenge China’s Belt and Road Initiative and impose sanctions on Chinese firms, aiming to limit Beijing’s influence.

Smaller nations in the region, meanwhile, could find themselves stuck in a high-stakes dilemma—aligning with the US risks Beijing’s wrath while leaning towards China risks Washington’s ire. With Trump redefining US foreign policy, these nations may face an impossible choice in a tightening geopolitical vice.

(The writer is a journalist and author; Views are personal)