The Year of Trump: What Has Changed in the US in 12 Months and Where Resistance Is Still Possible

When one year in the White House is enough to rewrite the rules of the game within the US and on the international stage.

The first year of Donald Trump's second presidential term has shown that the return of the 47th president is not a repeat of his 2017–2021 term, but a much more aggressive experiment with US institutions and the world order.^{4 8} From a flurry of executive orders and mass pardons to a demonstrative withdrawal of support for Ukraine and a revision of alliance commitments, Trump is moving from political showmanship to a systemic reshaping of the state machine.^{4 6} The question is no longer who he insults on Twitter, but whether Congress, the courts, the media, and civil society are able to put safeguards in place before the inertia of these decisions becomes irreversible.

The new Trump without restraint: more decrees, fewer compromises

As a number of American think tanks have noted, Trump's "second first year" has been qualitatively different in style and pace than his first term. Anadolu Agency describes the current version of the president as "unfiltered": without the traditional restraining factors within the Republican camp itself that previously at least partially inhibited radical decisions.⁶ . Quantitatively, this can be seen from a simple figure: in his first 12 months in the White House, Trump signed 228 executive orders — almost four times more than in his first year in 2017 (58 orders), and more than in all four years of his first term (220 orders).^{6 4} .

Politico notes that a significant part of these decisions passes "under the radar": the media's attention is focused on high-profile conflicts - immigration, Ukraine, NATO - while in the shadows, Trump methodically changes the rules of federal agencies, personnel policies, and regulations in the economic and social spheres.¹ In sum, this produces an effect that in the US is called "institutional engineering": not the destruction of the system in one day, but its consistent reconfiguration for one person and his or her idea of ​​power.

Day One: Mass Pardons and Demonstrative Revisionism

The symbolic gesture with which Trump began his second term was a mass pardon for the participants in the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021. On the very first day of his return to the White House, he pardoned about 1500 people convicted of participating in these events, effectively rewriting the official assessment of the attack on Congress as a crime against democracy.⁸ This was a signal to his supporters: "you are not criminals, you are heroes, and the state will take your side."

In the same initial package of executive orders, Trump reversed a number of key decisions by Joe Biden: he withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, rolled back most diversity, equality, and inclusion programs, limited the ability for government employees to work remotely, and reinstated the ban on transgender people serving in the military.^{8 4} In terms of scale, this was not a cosmetic revenge, but a demonstration: any achievement of predecessors can be canceled with one signature.

A U-turn in foreign policy: Ukraine's "surrender" and a signal for authoritarian leaders

The most painful component of the “Trump anniversary” for Kyiv is foreign policy. An analytical review by the Harvard Belfer Center frankly writes about the “de facto surrender of Ukraine” in early 2025, which not only undermined Kyiv’s chances, but also fatally damaged the trust in the United States in the eyes of allies and opponents.⁵ After a sharp reduction in military aid, attempts to impose a "quick ceasefire" on Kiev on terms close to Russian ones, and public statements about the unwillingness to "pay for someone else's war," the Kremlin made an obvious conclusion: Washington is no longer ready to rigidly guarantee the security of its partners.

The Belfer Center authors note that it was against this backdrop that Russia expanded its military presence in Georgia throughout 2025, and Russian troops began to "appear" along the long border with NATO, forcing the Alliance to stretch its forces thousands of kilometers.⁵ In fact, by abandoning a clear strategy for Ukraine, Washington has created a vacuum that Moscow and Beijing are filling with their own scenarios.

Military Power Without Deterrence: Venezuela, the Middle East, and the Threat of Insurrection Act

At the same time, Trump has shown that he is willing to use force where it fits his political narrative. According to the Boston Globe, throughout 2025 he authorized new strikes on Venezuela, using arguments about “restoring democracy” and “fighting dictatorships,” but without a clear strategy for what to do next.⁴ Attempts to limit his ability to strike without congressional approval have met with resistance: some Republicans in the Senate and House of Representatives supported a resolution to restrain the president, but were unable to bring it to a final vote.⁴ .

On the domestic front, Trump has openly threatened to invoke the rarely used Insurrection Act, a law that allows the military to be used to restore order within the country. The reason for this was protests in Minnesota and other states over his immigration policies and the actions of law enforcement officers.⁴ This raises a new question: will the US military transform from a foreign policy tool into a means of resolving domestic political conflicts?

Economy: "era of success" or crisis of confidence

The official White House website describes Trump's first year in office as "365 wins in 365 days," claiming he delivered "the strongest first year of economic performance in modern history" — with lower inflation and energy prices, tax breaks, and "America First trade protections."⁹ The list of “achievements” includes the abolition of industry regulations, the rollback of environmental standards, restrictions on the development of electric vehicles, and new protectionist measures, including tariffs even on foreign films, supposedly to support American cinema.⁹ .

Instead, the organization Americans for Tax Fairness describes the same year as “Trump’s terrible 2025,” when billionaires increased their fortunes to a record $8,2 trillion, while millions of ordinary Americans faced the threat of losing health insurance, cuts to social programs, and a growing budget deficit due to tax gifts to the richest.¹⁰ In their assessment, the administration is “threat- ening the health of tens of millions, widening inequality, and undermining the rule of law” — and this is no longer just a dispute about numbers, but a diagnosis of a development model.

Defeat of the state machine: personnel purges and dismantling of USAID

One of the most profound changes of the first year has been the assault on the federal apparatus. The Boston Globe describes how Trump has “reshaped the federal workforce,” promoting people loyal to him to leadership positions while simultaneously weakening the independence of agencies that were traditionally supposed to operate free from direct political pressure.⁴ . We are talking not only about the Ministry of Justice or the State Department, but also about regulators in the fields of environment, labor, and finance.

The decision to effectively dismantle the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Washington's main soft power tool in the world, has become a symbol. Critics say the cutback in development and humanitarian programs creates a vacuum that Russia, China, or regional autocracies would be eager to fill.⁸ For Ukraine, this means a potential reduction in reconstruction, institutional support, and reform programs that relied heavily on USAID.

Judicial and constitutional limits: what else can stop Trump?

Despite the scale of the changes, the system of checks and balances in the US has not been completely paralyzed. The judicial branch remains one of the key platforms for challenging its decisions: federal courts have already stopped or limited individual executive orders on immigration, the use of the National Guard, and the regulation of minority rights.⁴ However, the composition of the Supreme Court, where the majority are conservative judges appointed with the participation of Trump himself, makes the predictability of decisions less obvious.

In Congress, some Republicans are trying to draw red lines: for example, initiating resolutions that limit the ability to strike Venezuela without their approval or ignoring the most radical budget cuts to science, culture, and social programs proposed by the White House.⁴ However, in a situation where a large part of the party's constituency fanatically supports Trump, the space for public opposition within the Republican Party remains extremely narrow.

Civil society and the press: the resistance that does not disappear

One of the paradoxes of the “Trump anniversary” is that the harder he attacks the media and human rights organizations, the more they mobilize. Major publications — from the Washington Post to the Boston Globe — not only record scandals, but also systematically track structural changes: from personnel purges to shifts in regulations^{1 4} Think tanks publish retrospectives of the year, which step by step lay out the consequences of decisions for the economy, security, and international position of the United States.^{5 6} .

Protests continue to rage on the streets of major cities — against immigration raids, pardons for Capitol stormers, and the curtailment of minority rights. It is important for the Ukrainian reader to understand that despite the impression of monolithicity, a fierce struggle is underway within the US over what the state will be like after Trump and whether it will be possible to restore trust in institutions.^{4 10} It is this internal struggle that will determine how stable American commitments to allies, including Ukraine, will be.

Is successful resistance possible: six vectors

The question that is being asked today in Washington and European capitals is whether it is possible to stop or at least limit Trump's most radical impulses. The current experience of the first year allows us to outline several areas of such resistance.

First, legal: through the courts, which can declare unconstitutional decrees that go beyond the president’s authority. Second, parliamentary: Congress retains control over the budget and war, which means it can block funding for the most dangerous initiatives.^{4 5} Third, international: allies are able to increase the cost of unilateral US steps by forming coalitions and alternative security formats, reducing the space for manipulation.

Fourth, economic: business elites, who have already felt the effects of market shocks and unpredictability, can put pressure on the administration when its course threatens their interests.^{5 10} . Fifth, informational: the explanatory work of the media and analysts on the real price of Trump's decisions gives voters arguments that go beyond the emotional "for" or "against". Sixth, electoral: in the end, the decisive fuse remains the voter, who in two years must say whether he is ready to continue the experiment for another four years.

Ukrainian perspective: how to live with such a Washington

For Ukraine, the main lesson of the "Trump anniversary" is the realization that relying on personalities in American politics is dangerous. US support remains critically important, but it can no longer be taken for granted regardless of internal fluctuations in Washington.^{5 6} Kyiv is forced to simultaneously work with the Trump administration where possible — for example, through the defense industry, business alliances, and lobbying in Congress — and in parallel strengthen its own reliance on the EU, regional coalitions, and new partnerships.

Another conclusion is the importance of working with American society, not just with elites. The position on Ukraine is largely determined by how voters see this war: as "foreign" or as part of a broader struggle for the security of the West. As long as US citizens feel that supporting Ukraine is a protection against repeated aggression against NATO allies, the room for maneuver even for a president named Trump has limits^{5 6} And whether this border will be strong depends on how aptly Ukraine explains its war.

Sources

1. Politico Magazine: "25 Things Donald Trump Did This Year You Might Have Missed" analysis of the subtle but systemic changes in the first year of Trump's second term.
2. SME / other European media: materials about the inauguration of Donald Trump in January 2025 as the oldest US president and the context of his return to power.
3. European and American reviews of events in 2025: assessing the impact of Trump's second term on NATO, the EU, and the security environment around Ukraine.
4. Boston Globe: "Trump's first year brings big changes, with more to come" — an analysis of four key areas where Trump "broke the mold" in 2025, including the federal apparatus and the use of force.
5. Belfer Center, Harvard: "Retrospective on the First Year of Trump's Second Term" — an assessment of the "surrender of Ukraine", the economic shocks of 2025, and the consequences for global trust in the United States.
6. Anadolu Agency: "Trump's first year back: 'Unfiltered' 2nd term reshapes global order and domestic policies" — a description of the second term as an "unfiltered" agenda that changes both domestic politics and the global balance.
7. Deseret News and other American media: detailing Trump's first executive orders in 2025, pardons of January 6 participants, and dismantling part of Joe Biden's legacy.
8. Americans for Tax Fairness: "Trump's Terrible 2025" report on the impact of Trump's tax and social policies on inequality, budget deficits, and social programs.
9. Official White House website: "365 Wins in 365 Days: President Trump's Return Marks New Era of Success and Prosperity" — the administration's self-presentation on the economy, regulations, and "America First."
10. American and European analytical commentaries (think tanks, leading media) on political resistance to Trump's actions in the courts, Congress, and civil society.