What to Expect When Trump is in Office: A Forecast 

Media Provided by: Wilson Urist ‘27, Fiona Miller ‘26, and Cassie Ball ‘26. Mixed media with clippings from: The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Atlantic Journal-Constitution, The Wall Street Journal, and Le Monde.

The Uncertainty of the Transition: From Election to Inauguration 

​​News Analysis by Wilson Urist ‘27, Fiona Miller ‘26, and Cassie Ball ‘26 

On Wednesday, Nov. 6, 2024, students across the Grace Church High School experienced a day that felt somewhat like any other—except now, the student body knew who the president-elect was. Significant events often come with a mix of emotions. This day was no different. No matter their feelings, students were comforted in the school’s safe spaces. 

Between November 6th and January 20th, 2025, the United States faced a transitional period of anticipation, caught between the knowns of the past and the uncertainties of the incoming Trump administration. While the country moves toward the official start of President-elect Donald Trump’s second term, many Americans wonder what the future holds. His second term will almost certainly differ from the first. 

This article will explore what to expect during Trump’s second administration and how his leadership style will evolve. 

America Hires a Strongman 

On November 6, The New York Times published an analysis titled “America Hires a Strongman.” The term “strongman” is often used to describe leaders who, rather than rely on democratic norms or systems of checks and balances, seek to centralize power around themselves. They are a “government ruler who concentrates the power of the state in his person—or tries to—to the detriment of the rule of law; he also claims to embody the people,” a judgment attributed to journalist Gideon Rachman.

In his book, The Age of the Strongman: How the Cult of the Leader Threatens Democracy Around the World, Rachman writes that “strongman leaders want to be regarded as indispensable. Their goal is to convince them that they alone can save the nation.” This is a central theme of Trump’s political career. He’s positioned himself as the only person who can fix what is broken in America. His slogan, “Make America Great Again,” is not just about nostalgia for a past era–– but it is also a claim to personal greatness, implying that only he can return America to a state of prosperity and global dominance.

Attacking the Institutions 

One of the clearest ways Trump mirrors other global strongmen is through his aggressive stance against independent institutions–particularly the media and courts. Strongman leaders often see these institutions as safeguards to democracy and obstacles in their path to power. For this reason, they attack the media to control the narrative and weaken any criticism. Trump’s relationship with the press has been a prime example of this strategy. Time and time again, he has labeled critical media outlets as “fake news,” a tactic that not only discredits the press but also encourages those who follow him to reject any information that contradicts his views. Trump even went as far as calling The New York Times, CNN, and NBC News “the enemy of the American people.”

 

Media Provided from X. 

These statements rally his base by presenting the media as part of a larger conspiracy against Americans while simultaneously undermining the very institutions that hold Trump accountable. By framing the media as an enemy of the American people, Trump taps into a psychological dynamic where his supporters feel victimized by an elite, out-of-touch establishment. In Karen M. Stenner’s The Authoritarian Dynamic, published in 2005, she explores how authoritarian personalities are shaped by feelings of victimization and perceived threats from outliers. This sense of victimization fosters a “them vs. us” mentality, intensifying loyalty to Trump as the only possible figure who is capable of defending the interests of “true Americans” against an elitist group. 

Rachman, on this topic, notes that “strongmen go after the media and courts as they are the most important institutions for a strongman leader to control.” Throughout his first term, Trump attempted to delegitimize the media and has continued to do so outside of office. He also used the courts to solidify his agenda, with his appointments of conservative judges—including three Supreme Court justices—likely to influence legal decisions for decades to come. His second term will see a continuation of this strategy, reinforcing his control over the judicial system while further diminishing the role of the independent press. 

The Erosion of Civil Liberties and the Rhetoric of Division

Another common trait of the strongman leadership style is the exploitation of national division. In a polarized society, strongmen thrive by positioning themselves as the leader who can unite the “real” people against perceived enemies–whether they be political opponents, the media, or minority groups. Trump has shown himself to be adept at using divisive rhetoric to consolidate power, whether it was inflammatory remarks about immigrants or his claims that the 2020 election was “stolen.” These remarks undermined the state of American democracy. Trump has repeatedly framed the country as being in a crisis requiring a strong figure like himself to restore order. 

In The Age of the Strongman, the author argues that “a bitterly divided country makes it easier to persuade followers to tolerate the erosion of civil liberties in the interests of political victory over domestic enemies.” This has played out time and time again under Trump’s leadership, especially in the aftermath of the 2020 election. His false claims of voter fraud and his attempts to overturn the election results were not just a way to maintain power. They are a way to divide the country further and villainize those who disagree with him. This creates an erosion of democratic norms, whether through attacks on the legitimacy of political opponents or elections and stifling free speech—this is now seen as acceptable in the name of “saving” the nation.

Vanderbilt’s Unity Index measures “five inputs, including publicly available survey data on strong presidential disapproval, political and ideological extremism, social trust, political and social unrest, and measurements of Congressional polarization to provide a quarterly and replicable measurement of Americans’ level of political consensus.” Their findings for the year 2024 suggest that “the number of Americans who identify as either extremely liberal or extremely conservative has increased,” meaning that the national divide increased during the election year. This political division was beneficial for Trump’s consolidation of power. As the electorate became more ideologically polarized, Trump was able to frame himself as the sole leader capable of protecting “real” America from what he portrayed as a radical, out-of-touch opposition. Like many of his strongmen predecessors, Trump thrives in times of national crisis.

As Americans look ahead to Trump’s second term, these patterns will likely continue and intensify. He will continue to attack institutions that challenge his authority while doubling down on rhetoric that has helped him maintain a loyal base of supporters. Americans can expect him to focus on consolidating power, potentially by executive orders, appointing more biased justices, and undermining the legitimacy of his opponents, both in the media and within the government. 

Trump’s Problematic New National Security Team 

Over the past months, President-elect Trump’s nominees for important national security posts have demonstrated an overall lack of character and qualification. Many of them have furthered anti-democratic policies in their political pasts. Additionally, President-elect Trump’s defense policies signal the potential erosion of foundational constitutional norms. 

In early November, President-elect Trump nominated Fox News host and former National Guard officer Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense. Hegseth has been accused of sexual assault by a woman during a California GOP woman’s conference, while his comments that women should not serve in combat have drawn intense criticism. Like President Trump, Hegseth has bemoaned facets of military policy that he perceives as “woke.” 

During his confirmation hearing on January 14, Illinois Democrat Tammy Duckworth told Hegseth that “the American people need a secretary of defense who is ready to lead on day one. You are not that person. Our adversaries watch closely during times of transition, and any sense that the Department of Defense that keeps us safe is being steered by someone who’s wholly unprepared for the job puts America at risk, and I am not willing to do that.” 

As troubling, President-elect Donald Trump selected former Congresswoman and military veteran Tulsi Gabbard to serve as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the official who oversees the American intelligence community (IC). The IC is a vast apparatus that includes the CIA, NSA, and military intelligence organizations. With no experience in intelligence, Gabbard has furthered Russian propaganda, making her unfit to lead a critical hub for American security. 

In a New York Times piece from November, NYU history professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat stated that “[n]ominating Gabbard for director of national intelligence is the way to Putin’s heart, and it tells the world that America under Trump will be the Kremlin’s ally rather than an adversary.” 

Ben-Ghiat’s comments stem from Gabbard’s propagation of Kremlin talking points. For example, Gabbard iterated that the war in Ukraine could have been avoided if the United States had acquiesced to Vladimir Putin’s “legitimate security concerns” surrounding NATO membership for Ukraine. Gabbard has made these claims despite the unequivocal fact that Putin was the aggressor who himself ordered the invasion in February 2022. 

In another instance, Gabbard alleged that there are US-funded bio-labs in Ukraine. According to ABC, this statement “closely mirror[s] a false, decade-old Russian conspiracy theory that Washington is secretly funding the development of biological weapons in former Soviet countries, which has been repeatedly debunked by the U.S. and international organizations.” 

Due to her bolstering the Russian regime and its war in Ukraine, Gabbard has been dubbed “our girlfriend” by Russian state television, which has also, according to the Los Angeles Times, “praised her and even jokingly referred to her as a Russian agent.” 

Like Gabbard, Trump’s nomination of attorney and political aide Kash Patel as director of the Federal Bureau of Intelligence (FBI) raises serious alarm about both his qualifications for the post and his past authoritarian rhetoric. Having served in the first Trump presidency in different national security-related positions, Patel has promoted retribution against Trump’s political opponents. 

In his 2023 book Government Gangsters, Patel, like Trump, perpetrates the deep state myth, going as far as making a list of those who are involved in the conspiracy. According to NBC News, Patel referred to these people as “criminals.” The list stretches from conventional opponents, such as President Biden and Vice President Harris, to “lifelong Republicans who served in Trump’s first administration but declined to support his false claims that he won the 2020 election, including former Attorney General Bill Barr and former national security adviser John Bolton.” Their crime? Opposing the President of the United States, a sacred constitutional right that is the basis of our democratic existence. Patel, to quote Edward Murrow, has confused “dissent with disloyalty.” 

NBC News also reported that during a podcast interview with Steve Bannon, Patel explained how he would “handle” the press: “We’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections … Whether it is criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out.” Although he later tried to sanitize his remarks, Patel’s comments reveal his sinister motivations. He celebrated using the power of the federal government to punish journalists, a sentiment that has no place in the FBI Headquarters. 

White House Correspondent for TIME Magazine Brian Bennet explains, taken in conjunction with Trump’s threats to use the power of the Justice Department (DOJ) against his political opponents, Patel “could end up ushering in a new era of politically-motivated revenge.” 

To that end, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump’s team has considered establishing a “warrior board” to “review three- and four-star officers and to recommend removals of any deemed unfit for leadership.” Along with the nomination of Hegseth as Defense Secretary, there is a danger that President Trump’s administration may “purge” many senior U.S. military officers. This move would politicize the armed services, an institution that has long maintained an apolitical identity. 

Leon Panetta, former secretary of defense for President Barack Obama, reiterated that “[t]he military swears an oath to the Constitution, not to a political party, not to the president, but to the Constitution. And we ought to keep that separation in place.” 

Project 2025: The New Plan

In April of 2022, the Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think tank, published Project 2025, a detailed plan in book form that will consolidate power in the executive branch, further perpetuating Trump’s strongman persona, and overall, it will reshape the federal government. The project was created under the assumption that Donald Trump would win the 2024 election. 

During his campaign, Trump tried to distance himself from the project when some of its radical ideas faced media backlash. On his social media platform, Truth Social, he posted, “I know nothing about Project 2025 … I have no idea who is behind it … I disagree with some of the things they’re saying, and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.”

During his 2016 presidency, he worked with the Heritage Foundation to enact conservative policies. The chief of staff at the Office of Personnel during Trump’s first presidency, Paul Dans, helped to author the project. So, in fact, it seems like he has strong ties with the project.

With Trump as the current President-elect, the project will be able to move forward with little challenge, no matter how much Trump claims to be distant from it.

On the Project 2025 official website, the goals of the plan are clear:

  • Secure the border, finish building the wall, and deport illegal aliens
  • De-weaponize the Federal Government by increasing accountability and oversight of the FBI and DOJ
  • Unleash American energy production to reduce energy prices
  • Cut the growth of government spending to reduce inflation
  • Make federal bureaucrats more accountable to the democratically elected President and Congress
  • Improve education by moving control and funding of education from DC bureaucrats directly to parents and state and local governments
  • Ban biological males from competing in women’s sports

In order to speed up the lawmaking process, Project 2025 proposes utilizing “unitary executive theory.” This theory is in line with the core principles of a dictatorship: a strong leader with plenty of power at his country’s head. This would place the whole federal bureaucracy under the direct control of the executive branch. The president’s agendas would be able to move forward more quickly and with less challenge. 

While the “unification” plan moves forward with Trump’s election and the rest of the Project 2025 agenda becomes easier to carry out, many Americans are unclear about how the other goals of the project will affect their daily lives.

Firstly, the project plans on “root[ing] out wrongdoers” and “fir[ing] corrupt employees” of the government. It wants to make it easier to appoint who the president wants in office. Many government officials will be removed from their positions, and it will be easier for the president to do whatever he wants. 

The document describes the FBI as an “increasingly lawless organization” and calls for drastic measures to correct the agency. Additionally, it proposes the complete elimination of the Department of Education, which would be devastating. There are a few government acts that would not be upheld without the DOE. 

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides funding from the federal government for K-12 schools. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act gives students with disabilities free education that supports their special needs. If the Department of Education is dissolved, the ground upon which these important acts stand will become shaky because it will be up to the states to decide whether they will uphold the acts. Countless students may be negatively affected in their school environments, not getting the support they need.

Limiting speech is also on the agenda of Project 2025. It calls for schools and parents to choose to stifle what it calls “woke propaganda.” The project wants to silence specific words that fall under this “woke propaganda” umbrella, such as “sexual orientation,” “gender equality,” “abortion,” and “reproductive rights.” Additionally, part of the plan is to stop enforcing diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in government departments and schools. 

On the topic of abortion, the document says that the Department of Health and Human Services should “maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family” and proposes data collection efforts on abortion.

It does not suggest a nationwide abortion ban, but it does suggest withdrawing mifepristone from the market (but not banning it) and regulations for sending it through the post. According to a Vox article, “Project 2025 calls for prosecuting ‘providers and distributors of abortion pills that use the mail,’ via an old anti-obscenity law called the Comstock Act—a law that… ‘has not been seriously enforced for nearly a century.’”

While abortions would not be banned, it would be much harder to access one and could lead to more maternal deaths due to unsafe abortions or pregnancies gone wrong.

The project suggests a larger border policing operation and the completion of a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico. As much as the Heritage Foundation claims this will keep away illegal immigrants, this is a fallacy. Aside from being extremely expensive, a wall would not stop illegal immigrants and drugs from crossing through tunnels or shipping drugs with drones. Lots of money would go into funding the wall and other protections, potentially shifting financial focus from more important issues. 

The project also aims to increase national energy production and halt efforts to lower carbon emissions or research renewable energy. This may speed up climate change, which Americans have already begun to feel more directly. Stronger hurricanes hitting the Gulf coasts, Fires in LA, and serious droughts have ravaged the country in the past years. These disasters will only become more destructive and claim more lives if carbon emissions are not lowered.

The document has some suggestions in line with Trump’s strong ideas about placing tariffs on other countries. According to the BBC, “a typical household in the middle of the US income distribution … would lose around $1,700 each year” due to the tariffs. 

***

The United States faces a pivotal moment as it transitions to President-elect Donald Trump’s second term. With a leadership style that aligns with the global trend of “strongman” politics, Trump’s focus on consolidating power and eroding democratic norms is expected to shape his administration. The introduction of Project 2025 and controversial cabinet nominations signal a continuation of these themes, raising concerns about the future of civil liberties, education, and national security. As America moves forward, the coming years will test the resilience of its democratic institutions and its citizens’ ability to navigate an increasingly polarized political landscape. 

Cassie Ball ‘26, one of the authors, is a Deputy Editor for The Grace Gazette and wrote the section on America Hiring a Strongman. 

Wilson Urist ‘27, one of the authors, is a staff writer for The Grace Gazette, the leader of the school’s High School Democrats club, and wrote the section on Trump’s National Security Team

Fiona Miller ‘26, one of the authors, is a staff writer for The Grace Gazette and wrote the section on Project 2025: The New Plan