Understanding Trump’s Domestic Moves Decodes His Foreign Policy

Breaking the Deep State: A Path to Total Control

To expand his freedom of action and increase his chances of success, Trump is systematically dismantling the system of checks and balances that could obstruct his agenda. The media frames this as an effort to “streamline” government—reducing bureaucracy and cutting costs. In reality, it is a purge: removing potentially disloyal figures and replacing them with unwavering loyalists from the MAGA movement. This is a practical, long-term strategy to secure Trump’s grip on power and fortify the MAGA movement grip in power.

DOGE: The New Tool for Injecting Trumpism

Controversy surrounding the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) will persist—not to eliminate funding for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies, as some suggest, but to redirect resources toward promoting Trumpism. This extends beyond U.S. borders, aiming to spread Trump’s ideology globally.

The most critical aspect of this strategy is financial. Trump and his allied oligarchs seek to amass wealth, ensuring long-term political dominance for the IAGA movement. The White House cannot function without an administrative apparatus, and Trump has ample leverage to reshape it in alignment with his ideological vision.

His most decisive move, however, is the dismantling of institutional checks and balances. By undermining the separation of powers, he is seeking to neutralize the state itself—replacing it with governance shaped by his and Musk’s radical ideology. This extremism operates through shock and awe, suppressing opposition by instilling fear and inertia. The same approach applies to domestic politics.

The Last Line of Resistance: The Judiciary

With control over the administration secured, Trump’s next major battle will be against judicial oversight. His administration is expected to defy court rulings outright.

Why not? He is already untouchable:

• He holds the power of presidential pardons, shielding himself and his allies from prosecution.
• The Supreme Court has effectively granted him total immunity—even beyond his time in office.
• If he or his chosen candidate loses an election, there is no guarantee he will accept the result or step down— a key insight into his broader strategy.

Trump has already hinted that the 2024 election could be “the last.” His term may be four years, but:

• In just two years, Congress could turn against him.
• He will, therefore, attempt to consolidate power in a way that makes a return to normal governance nearly impossible.
• If he gains control over the administration, the judiciary, and law enforcement, he will undoubtedly seek to extend his rule in some form. It is naïve to assume that Trump, in partnership with Musk, will relinquish power willingly.

Control of Intelligence Agencies: Checkmate Against the System

To understand the new administration’s trajectory, one must follow the logical chain:

·  Elon Musk as de facto co-president, operating beyond any congressional oversight.

·  Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence (DNI), ensuring that intelligence leaks do not compromise secret negotiations with Russia or China.

·  Kash Patel at the FBI, shifting its focus from foreign threats to combating so-called internal enemies.

During Trump’s previous term, intelligence agencies tracked secret deals involving Putin and Rosneft shares—transactions worth billions that, after a convoluted path, ultimately failed to land where intended: in Washington, instead remaining parked in Singapore.

Support Independent Analysis

Help us keep delivering free, unbiased, and in-depth insights by supporting our work. Your donation ensures we stay independent, transparent, and accessible to all. Join us in preserving thoughtful analysis—donate today!

The Trump-Oligarch Alliance

Trump is determined to use his power to secure vast resources and influence for himself and his inner circle of oligarchs, ensuring their long-term dominance over American politics.

To this end, he has obstructed enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, allowing U.S. companies to engage in bribery abroad without legal repercussions—removing barriers to their global expansion.

This Trump-oligarch alliance has both domestic and international implications. Their economic interests are becoming “national priorities,” shaping U.S. foreign policy. This explains Trump’s threats of trade wars and tariff hikes—measures designed to break down barriers that could limit their operations abroad.

The “Electric Shock” to Europe

French President Macron’s description of Trump’s impact on Europe as an “electric shock” makes it crystal clear: ignoring or downplaying his sabotage of the EU is no longer an option.

Vice President Vance’s recent speech at the MSC marked the opening of a new ideological front in Trump’s confrontation with Europe. There is little doubt that, given the secret contacts with Russia and by supporting radical groups on both the right and left (particularly Alternative for Germany in the upcoming German elections), Trump and Musk seek to destabilize and subjugate the EU while weakening its internal resistance. Orbán and Fico will play roles in this process, but paradoxically, Trump’s overt hostility toward the EU limits their maneuvering rather than amplifying their influence.

Preparing for the Worst-Case Scenario

For Europe, the only viable strategy in response to Trump is to treat the worst-case scenario as a baseline. The unpredictability of his actions, combined with the uncertain strength of U.S. institutional restraints, leaves no room for complacency.

Trump’s attacks are ideologically driven. His goal is to export the MAGA revolution abroad, forging a new international order based on great-power treaties and spheres of influence. In this vision, striking deals with Putin and Xi takes precedence over maintaining alliances.

Under Trump, the term “ally” is conditional. It is, therefore, logical for European NATO members to start behaving as if the U.S. has already withdrawn from Europe and abandoned joint security efforts. Even if this assumption seems extreme or too emotional, it is far better to prepare for it and be proven wrong than to hope for the best, squander time, and fail to protect Europe’s most critical security interest—an independent, militarily capable Ukraine.

The Ukraine Factor

Although JD Vance’s speech omitted any direct reference to Ukraine, Trump will continue to engage with Putin unilaterally, disregarding European and Ukrainian perspectives. However, this policy has significant limitations and consequences:

1. Any deal with Putin has to be acceptable to Ukraine and Europe. The likelihood of an agreement being imposed “by force” is virtually nonexistent. Even cutting U.S. aid will not coerce Zelensky into accepting a settlement that undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty and stability. The fundamental flaw in the shift from the “no negotiations about Ukraine without Ukraine” to direct talks with Putin is that by positioning himself as a mediator, Trump assumes responsibility for both the success and failure of such negotiations. If he is seeking international recognition or a Nobel Peace Prize, he may find this aspiration futile.
2. Europe has natural limits to its dependence on U.S. security guarantees. Despite Trump’s threats to withdraw U.S. troops and his rhetoric on European reliance, European governments—including nuclear-armed Britain—are not entirely vulnerable to such pressure. The EU’s inevitable shift toward military self-reliance will alter the balance of power, reducing the influence of radical parties and reinforcing Europe’s own defense capabilities. Ukraine’s security contribution to Europe is already more significant than Trump’s unpredictable U.S. support. If Ukraine can hold back Russia alone, its alliance with a militarized Europe would be even more formidable.
3. Trump expects Europe to shoulder the financial burden of peace and reconstruction in Ukraine. His plan envisions U.S. benefits without obligations. However, Ukraine has no incentive to grant the U.S. preferential natural resource concessions if Washington refuses to provide security guarantees or weapons. Moreover, Putin will always be ready to offer Trump a better personal deal, as he has done in the past.
4. Europe holds strong economic leverage. It controls the majority of Russia’s frozen assets, which can be used to finance Ukraine’s defense and reconstruction. While the U.S. has only $30 billion in seized Russian sovereign assets, the EU holds a much larger share. Additionally, Trump cannot unilaterally lift the most critical sanctions on Russia. He may remove U.S. restrictions on trade with Russia, but the numbers tell the story:
   • Pre-war 2021 U.S.-Russia trade: $6.4 billion in exports, $21.6 billion in imports.
   • EU-Russia trade: €90 billion in exports, €160 billion in imports (primarily energy, now significantly diversified).
     The most crucial economic leverage over Russia lies with Europe, not Trump.
5. Increased European defense spending will reshape transatlantic dynamics. If European nations raise military budgets to an average of 3% of GDP, this will generate an additional €200-250 billion in defense spending—funding major arms purchases. Notably, between mid-2022 and mid-2023, 63% of all EU defense orders went to U.S. manufacturers, totaling €187.7 billion ($203 billion) in sales. However, Trump must recognize that the U.S. cannot take this market for granted. If America withdraws from European security commitments, Europe will prioritize self-sufficiency, drastically reducing its dependence on U.S. military suppliers. This would directly undermine the U.S. defense industry—one of the unintended consequences of Trump’s policies.
6. Trump’s non-participation in Ukraine’s postwar reconstruction will cost the U.S. economically. If Washington refuses to engage financially or materially in rebuilding Ukraine, American businesses will be shut out of the reconstruction efforts, forfeiting massive investment opportunities.

Trump’s Psychological Warfare and the European Response

Trump’s greatest advantage lies in his unpredictability—his ability to shock and dictate the terms of political discourse. Compared to European leaders, he has superior control over opinion-shaping via digital media. As he sheds his “allied inhibitions,” he is increasingly willing to target former partners with psychological and political attacks, potentially alienating them when he eventually requires their cooperation—such as in dealing with China.

As Canada’s experience has shown, strong rhetorical pushback against Trump is necessary and often successful. However, practical measures should simultaneously focus on damage control and diplomatic maneuvering. Counter-propaganda efforts are generally ineffective against Trump’s self-sustaining media ecosystem, as demonstrated in the last U.S. election.

Rather than direct ideological confrontation, Europe should adopt an “aikido-style” approach—leveraging Trump’s own tactics against him, remaining flexible, and responding with pragmatic, focused action.

Munich Conference: The End of NATO?

The first day of the Munich Security Conference signaled escalating tensions within NATO and a dramatic shift in transatlantic relations:

• Vice President JD Vance declared that Europe’s main threat is not Russia or China, but its own elites.
• Germany’s defense minister rewrote his speech in response to Vance’s remarks, underscoring the growing confrontational tone.
• Trump and his “co-president” Elon Musk are actively courting far-right parties like Alternative for Germany in an effort to rewrite democratic norms and undermine traditional U.S. allies in Europe.

Calling this “interference in Germany’s internal affairs” would be an understatement—the U.S. is not stopping there. Expect intervention in every major European election. Trump is moving forward without restraint.

Not Everything Is Going According to Trump’s Plan

Despite Trump’s aggressive push, resistance is forming:

• Zelensky met with a bipartisan U.S. Congressional delegation, while the expanded Weimar format—now including Scandinavian countries—made it clear they oppose Trump’s approach and promised sustained support to Ukraine.
• Trump had announced a U.S.-Russia diplomatic meeting in Munich, but it never took place. This suggests that a bilateral peace talks are unlikely to happen anywhere in Europe, and that it will not accept Trump-Putin peace arrangements.
• Zelensky refused to let Ukrainian diplomats participate in Trump’s proposed meeting in Munich, and his attendance at the next Trump-led meeting in Saudi Arabia is uncertain—especially if he is relegated to a passive role.
• Ukraine is prioritizing coordination with its U.S. and EU allies first, while the U.S. appears to be avoiding such discussions.
• If the U.S. does not consider itself an ally, it cannot credibly act as a “neutral mediator.” This severely limits its ability to sell any Trump-Putin peace deal.

Trump Has No Strategy—Only Tactics

The contradictions within the U.S. administration are glaring:

• Keith Kellogg, White House Deputy Special Representative for Ukraine, has not ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine or the possibility of U.S. troops participating in a peacekeeping force.
• Meanwhile, Vance—after a string of inflammatory remarks—has tried to regain credibility by making ritualistic threats of sanctions and arms deliveries to Russia, though Putin is well aware that these threats are hollow.
• In current US Foreign Policy – there is only one voice that matters – that of President Trump.

One key question remains unanswered: What concessions does Trump expect from Russia?

If the only “compromises” come from Ukraine, then this is not a negotiation—it is a capitulation.

All signs suggest that Trump has no long-term strategy. Instead, he is maneuvering opportunistically, searching for a deal that benefits him personally rather than securing a sustainable peace.

Europe Must Stop Seeing Trump as an Ally

Trump and Vance’s reassurances—“We are in NATO together”—ring hollow when, from the stage of Europe’s most important security forum, they declare that the real threat is not Russia or China, but European elites. Their rhetoric is not just a distraction; it is a deliberate attempt to reshape the transatlantic relationship on Trump’s terms—where loyalty is transactional, alliances are fluid, and shared values take a backseat to personal power.

In Trump’s worldview, the greatest enemy is an internal one—whether within NATO or the United States itself. Trumpism is not about geopolitics; it is about ideology, control, and dismantling institutions that stand in the way of his influence. This mindset directly undermines the foundations of collective security, turning NATO from a strategic alliance into a stage for political spectacle.

For European leaders, this is the moment to recognize a hard truth: under Trump, the United States is no longer a reliable ally. The idea that Europe can continue to count on Washington’s unwavering support is a dangerous illusion. The signs have been there for years—Trump’s open disdain for NATO, his transactional approach to foreign policy, and his praise for authoritarian leaders. If re-elected, his administration will not hesitate to weaken, sideline, or even abandon the alliance when it suits his political ambitions.

And above all, it is Europe’s indecisiveness—along with Macron and Merkel’s disastrous handling of the Minsk agreements—that has allowed Trump to sideline European leaders in his tête-à-tête with Putin. By failing to take a firm, unified stance on security and defense, Europe has ceded ground in the geopolitical arena, leaving itself vulnerable to both Trump’s unpredictability and Russia’s aggression.

The time for hesitation is over. Europe must act now to strengthen its own security, invest in its defense capabilities, and chart a path that is not dependent on Washington’s political whims. The future of the continent depends on it.

The Limits of Trumpism

If you think Trump can be stopped by the courts, or by constitutional limits, think again.

Neither Trump nor Musk seems likely to voluntarily relinquish power in 2029. In this emerging global alliance of autocrats, stepping down is not an option.

The same applies to Trump’s European allies—do you expect Orbán to lose on fair elections or leave office peacefully? Or Putin? Or Erdogan?  

This is just the beginning of the most radical political experiment in modern history.

Will it succeed? Or will it trigger the greatest institutional crisis and loss of global standing the US has ever seen? That is for the Americans to decide.

As Europeans, it is ultimately what we decide—and, more importantly, what we do—that will determine our fate.

Ilian Vassilev