What Trump Might Do in Office
Thinking through the likely scenarios.
The prospect of a second Trump term has engendered a growing sense of dread among many Americans, especially in light of his darker rhetoric and more menacing pledges. While it is true that Trump’s bluster in the 2016 campaign often didn’t translate to real action during his presidency—for example, his threats to jail former Secretary Hillary Clinton and build a border wall were ultimately toothless—he did try with many items on his agenda and, as a second term becomes a real possibility, it’s worth grappling with what he can (and can’t) do. Could he pass a national abortion ban? Shut down the border? Purge the federal bureaucracy? Be a dictator for a day, as he (maybe jokingly) indicated to Sean Hannity?
Suffice it to say: Trump will have wide latitude to take unilateral action as it relates to the executive branch, but the extent to which he’ll be able to do this without congressional pushback—or to pass any kind of legislative agenda at all—will largely hinge on the outcomes of down-ballot races this November.
It’s important not to overstate the president’s powers. America’s bulwarks against any president’s more authoritarian impulses have so far continued to hold. The courts on numerous occasions reeled Trump back in when he overstepped his bounds. At the same time, though, it is becoming clear that one of Trump’s top second-term priorities is to reshape his arm of government in a way no president has done since FDR. In doing so, he could oversee a vast expansion of presidential power.
Part of what came to frustrate Trump throughout his first term was a sense that few people in his inner circle or cabinet were willing to fight for him or his priorities. The GOP establishment famously surrounded him with “adults in the room,” such as Reince Priebus, John Kelly, and Rex Tillerson. All tried at various points to curb Trump’s worst impulses—and all were pushed out over the course of his presidency. Trump finally seemed to land where he wanted to be when, in February 2020, he tapped as his new head of the Presidential Personnel Office 29-year-old Johnny McEntee, who was tasked with identifying and removing civil servants thought to be working against the president and his agenda.
Since Trump left office, McEntee and other former aides have been involved in a Heritage Foundation scheme known as Project 2025, which has prepared detailed policies and personnel lists to help Trump pick up where he left off—but this time with an administration of toadies and a clearer plan for pushing pro-MAGA policies.
The Trump campaign has sought to somewhat distance itself from Project 2025, saying its architects don’t speak for him. However, Trump has previously expressed support for many of the project’s ideas. In fact, toward the end of his first term, he adopted one of them: reclassifying civil servants as “Schedule F.” Under this change, long-time government workers would lose their employment protections and essentially become at-will employees, making it easier for his administration to fire people whom they consider to be working against his interests (or those whom he considers part of the “deep state”).
Trump is also expected to bring his demands for loyalty to his inner circle, creating a bubble of subservient “yes men.” Gone are the days of chiefs of staff like Priebus, Kelly, and Mick Mulvaney who pushed back against him. This time, Trump plans to keep as his confidants those who previously demonstrated unwavering loyalty to him, such as senior adviser Stephen Miller, political adviser Steve Bannon, and national security adviser Kash Patel.
In this same spirit, Trump and his allies have their eyes set on the Justice Department, the nation’s top law-enforcement agency. Trump worked to erode the DOJ’s independence throughout his first term, and Trump loyalists—notably Jeffrey Clark in an editorial called “The U.S. Justice Department Is Not Independent”—have been making the argument that, if elected again, Trump should treat the DOJ like any other federal department, involving himself in its affairs whenever he sees fit. The consequences of such a legal theory could be profound. Most healthy democracies do their best to keep the administration of justice removed from politics. Changing this ethos in America by making the DOJ a de facto arm of the presidency—allowing presidents to wantonly pursue vengeance against their enemies, including their successors—would set a new and dangerous precedent.
Trump has already promised to issue pardons to those who stormed the Capitol on January 6, whom he has referred to as “hostages.” He may well pull the United States out of NATO—a move he held short on in the first term but that, if followed through, would have a significant impact on the global balance of power. He will almost surely refuse to continue funding Ukraine in its war against Russia. He has also suggested he would lob missiles into the borders of Mexico—a U.S. ally and trade partner—to disrupt drug cartels’ business. Congressional Republicans have even toyed with the idea of approving plans to send U.S. troops into the country to take out cartel members.
Domestically, Trump has promised a heavy focus on immigration in his second term, envisioning a crackdown on illegal migration that could include raids, mass detention camps, millions of deportations per year, a freeze of the nation’s asylum program, and an end to birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants (a measure that is probably unconstitutional). He may also reinstitute his travel ban on select Muslim-majority countries. Among the more ominous things he has threatened is deploying the military on American soil to quell domestic unrest, specifically in Democratic-controlled cities—something he nearly did during the summer of 2020 under the Insurrection Act.
Though most or all of these actions are bound to face legal challenges and political opposition, many of them are likely within Trump’s power to pursue. And although his administration didn’t always know where the right levers were in his first term, the plans outlined by Project 2025 and the push to create a bureaucracy more committed to his agenda could leave him well-positioned to achieve much of what he wants to do.
Meanwhile, if the Republican Party wins control of both houses of Congress in November, Trump’s hands could be freed even further. Several controversial policies for which Trump has previously expressed support would suddenly be on the table, including a national abortion ban and yet another attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. He could also be expected to take aim at Biden’s signature first-term accomplishment, the Inflation Reduction Act. Additionally, he could try to revive first-term policies, such as funding his border wall or passing another round of corporate tax cuts.
Prognostications of Trump’s second term have often focused on Doomsday scenarios—imagining Trump as an out-and-out fascist or lining up political adversaries against a wall. (And the indelible images of January 6th are very much on people’s minds.) But even if Trump abides by executive norms—as he more or less did for the bulk of his first term—the damage he can do to democratic institutions should not be underestimated. The Supreme Court leans conservative, and congressional Republicans have signaled their willingness to rubber-stamp his agenda. Even by executive action alone, he can wreak havoc with America’s foreign policy and sow tremendous discord at home. It is hard to overstate the damage that he could do if he returns to the White House.
Michael Baharaeen is a DC-based political and election analyst. He is a native of Kansas City and writes the Checks and Balances newsletter on Substack.
Follow Persuasion on X, LinkedIn, and YouTube to keep up with our latest articles, podcasts, and events, as well as updates from excellent writers across our network.
And, to receive pieces like this in your inbox and support our work, subscribe below:
No problem with this on the whole, but a conservative-leaning Supreme Court is a danger to democracy? Really?
I’m glad he wrote the last sentence. I think any rational effort to argue that the damage Trump can do is limited is wildly off base. It may well be that, if he wins and after he does damage that will take decades if ever to recover from, some set of sensible people will react. But we didn’t see any of that on the right during his so called presidency. There is no evidence what so ever that the current Republican Party will resist him at all. I think Biden will win a two candidate race; I don’t think he will win if there are multiple third parties. We came within about 80,000 votes and the efforts of a tiny number of honest election officials of a coup. A next time will be worse.