A s Donald Trump prepares to once again assume the presidency, the stakes for U.S. foreign policy, global governance, and democratic movements could not be higher. This is not the same Trump, nor is it the same world he left in 2021. His second term promises to bring not only new challenges but also a fundamentally different playbook, shaped by the lessons he learned from his first term, a new cadre of influential players in his orbit, and multiple international crises ripe for exploitation. To guide progressive action, we must appreciate the unprecedented risks from his return, the broken promises of those who came before him, and the state of the nation—and the world—that the Biden Administration is handing over to him.

A New Era in Corruption

Trump’s first term was defined by chaotic policymaking, impulsive decisions, and a tendency to undermine democratic institutions and checks on presidential power. This time, he is likely to go even further in prioritizing loyalty over expertise, and in trying to dismantle the rules, systems, and regulations that once constrained his power. He has already made it clear that only those who exhibit fealty will have places in his Administration. Corruption thrives in such systems, where personal loyalty is maintained through the promise of impunity.

Some are puzzled by his choice of Marco Rubio as secretary of state, who, contrary to Trump’s seemingly non-interventionist, America First approach, is an ardent neoconservative. For one thing, most of Trump’s Cabinet nominations have been based on whether candidates are willing to do his will without question, not on their policy positions. But even when it comes to ideology, we should not be surprised. In fact, Trump’s first term revealed the President-elect to be a militaristic unilateralist whose impulsivity and brashness make unintended escalation dangerously possible. His chosen national security adviser, Mike Waltz, is another neoconservative whose role as a prominent cheerleader for the “war on terror” is likely to make him useful in weaponizing a similar framing to target Trump’s adversary of choice, whether it be other countries, like China or Iran, or civil society organizations and NGOs that oppose Trump’s positions.

Beyond the lackeys he nominates, Trump is signaling plans for structural changes in government that mark a deeply concerning shift from Trump 1.0. Just days before the election, Elon Musk was introduced at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally as “the greatest capitalist in the history of the United States of America.” It is clear that the concentration of power with Musk and other tech and financial titans is the feature, not the bug, in Trump’s America.

Trump has announced that Musk will be the co-director of a new Department of Government Efficiency. Putting Musk in a position to advise on government decisions while he has an array of private contracts and business interests with the government across the defense, space, energy, and technology sectors raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest. However, Musk’s unofficial direct involvement in foreign policy—joining calls between Trump and world leaders, and reported contact with Vladimir Putin and with Iranian officials—is even more problematic. Someone acting at such a high level in foreign policy without a clear official role and outside of formal institutional structures raises concerns about transparency and accountability, regardless of the foreign policy direction Trump takes.

Ultimately, Trump’s model of impunity and blurred lines between private and public actors poses a threat to stability both domestically and internationally.

We should be deeply concerned too about what a second Trump presidency will mean for multilateral institutions. Trump’s nomination of Elise Stefanik, a fierce critic of the United Nations who called for the complete reassessment of U.S. funding for the UN, as U.S. ambassador to that body signals his intent to further marginalize the organization and undermine multilateral cooperation. Stefanik favors blocking U.S. support for key UN agencies like the World Health Organization and the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA), the main provider of humanitarian aid to Palestinians. Unfortunately, President Biden has already set a precedent by cutting funding to UNRWA and undermining the credibility of the international legal order, exposing the “rules-based international order” as a sham. His Administration’s vetoes of Gaza-related resolutions at the UN, as well as its opposition to the International Court of Justice’s rulings against Israel and the International Criminal Court’s decisions to request and then issue warrants to arrest Hamas and Israeli leaders, showcased a selective application of international law.

By eroding domestic institutions and bankrupting international ones—such as the World Health Organization and the World Food Program—Trump will undermine the very mechanisms that are vital for addressing global crises. Climate change, geopolitical instability, and pandemics do not—and will never—respect borders. It is impossible to safeguard Americans, not to mention people around the world, from these and other threats without international collaboration. While there are rightful critiques of our domestic and international institutions, destroying them without well-thought-out replacements will make life worse, not better, including for Trump’s own constituencies.

Self-Interest and Imperial Rhetoric

Trump’s second term will unfold in a world (and a Washington, D.C.) that is primed for so-called “great power competition.” One wildcard in the second Trump Administration will be the influence of the Silicon Valley billionaires who support Trump—particularly Musk. Musk’s business interests might lead him to oppose extremely tough economic policies toward China, which could result in a conflict with Trump in which Musk may resist a full-scale push to treat China as an adversary. These magnates’ influence could even shift U.S. policy away from outright military confrontation and toward competitive coexistence. But business leaders are not a monolith, and the power of arms manufacturers is not going anywhere. Those eager to sell more weapons may find themselves in conflict with those wary of economic warfare in the form of tariffs and a potential pay-for-protection U.S.-Taiwan relationship. Billionaires interested in a thoughtful balance of competition and cooperation will also have to contend with a number of officials—like Rubio, Waltz, and Pete Hegseth, Trump’s nominee for secretary of defense—who view Beijing as an existential threat. This will create volatility in the upcoming Trump Administration, which is a hallmark of Trump’s precarious and unpredictable approach to governance.

In the Arctic and in space, strategic competition with Russia and China will likely escalate further, with corporate elites and the monopolies they have over emerging technologies playing a central role in shaping U.S. policy. The Pentagon is already concerned about the growing military cooperation between Russia and China in the Arctic. A recent joint aerial patrol by Russian and Chinese bombers near Alaska exemplified this collaboration and highlighted the risk of intensifying military competition in that area. Similarly, the U.S. Space Force has been raising concerns about China’s rapid development of space-based military capabilities, which poses a significant threat and increases the risk of warfare in orbit. With Trump’s position on China and the existing dominance of “great power competition” thinking, this will represent a major concern and could provide a pretext for escalations in the coming years.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that he will end Russia’s war in Ukraine, likely by pressing Ukraine to concede some territory to Russia. With both sides dug in and the full-scale invasion having just passed its thousandth day, it is reasonable to be looking for ways to bring the war to an end. But Trump’s eagerness to claim victory could lead to a deal that abandons Ukraine’s right to autonomy and self-defense capabilities, which will not only hurt Ukrainians but risk more war in the future. Meanwhile, Trump’s push for European countries to take responsibility and pay their fair share in NATO could leave them vulnerable in the short term, even as they may be struggling economically due to the protectionist economic policies that Trump plans to impose on Europe.

Closer to home, Trump has also laid the groundwork for a more aggressive stance in Latin America. In addition to the extreme immigration policies he promised to implement on day one, his rhetoric about an “invasion” could escalate dramatically into military action. And on top of his promise of mass deportations that could involve the military, Trump threatened this summer to bomb Mexico.

Trump’s foreign policy views are perhaps most evident in his selection of Steve Witkoff, a real estate mogul, as his Middle East envoy. Trump’s worldview centers around business opportunities, and he believes that peace is advantageous for business. It’s unsurprising that his preferred partner in Middle East policy is another real estate investor who views the crisis in the region as akin to “one giant real estate deal.”

Given Trump’s notorious volatility, the outcomes of all these policies remain unclear, but it is certain that he and his oligarchic policies are driven by self-interest rather than national security.

The Decline of Global Justice

We are already witnessing a global trend of rising autocracy, inequality, and human rights violations. In the United States, Biden’s failure to keep his promise to support human rights was already a significant disappointment. He continued the unaccountable provision of arms to Israel, despite that country’s glaring violations of international law in Gaza, and maintained unaccountable, expansive arms sales to oppressive regimes in the Gulf.

There are clear indications that Trump’s Administration will be even worse. In Europe, he leans toward allies like Giorgia Meloni and Viktor Orbán, who share similar values regarding strict immigration policies and the suppression of LGBTQ rights. In Argentina, he favored President Javier Milei, who has rebuffed international efforts to address climate change and gender-based violence and whose austerity-based economic policies have reduced inflation but sent poverty skyrocketing. And then there’s Trump’s affinity for former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and his brutal war on crime.

Trump’s second term also coincides with the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI), which offers opportunities but carries risks like job displacement, unintended conflicts, and the concentration of wealth and political power. A handful of corporations, many aligned with Elon Musk and the Trump Administration, control AI development and application globally. This hinders robust oversight and accountability, exacerbating inequality and undermining democracy.

What Progressives Must Do

Progressives must face the new reality honestly, clearly, and resolutely. To confront not only Trump’s policies but also the systemic failures that fueled his rise, we should focus on four main areas.

First, push for the United States to renew its commitments to the consistent application of international law and for investment in functioning multilateral institutions, and develop new and stronger oversight mechanisms to govern arms sales, weapons development, and military spending.

Second, address economic inequality at home and abroad by tackling elite capture of political and economic governance and by advancing policies to promote the public interest.

Third, it is imperative to challenge Trump’s narrative and accurately define his presidency: He is a self-serving individual pursuing a project to advance the interests of his international oligarchic allies, who are not bound by the nationalist principles that he professes to uphold.

Finally, progressives must focus on improving institutional mechanisms and models of transparency and accountability, both because it is in the public interest and because their absence fueled the rise of a corrupt and morally bankrupt figure. There is an opportunity to rebuild the progressive movement with clear goals, credible representatives of the base, and an affirmative agenda, rather than remaining on the defensive, which has been unproductive. We must also face the realities of tribal politics while pursuing policies that make such grievances less potent. The stakes are higher than ever, and the path forward demands both innovation and an unwavering commitment to justice and accountability.