The Iconoclast’s Battle

When Americans elected Donald Trump, the impression that the US stood at the cusp of a great change was unmistakable. The 2016 election represented a moment when political orthodoxy was not merely questioned but upended. Subsequently, as the Trump administration unleashed a slew of policy measures that upended how the presidency and institutions in America function, that initial sentiment became even more deeply entrenched. Trump, the ultimate political iconoclast, is testing the remit of the president’s office and, in doing so, is altering how institutions in America work.

In his latest move, Trump has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to send the military into US states if courts block him from deploying the National Guard. His reaction came after a federal judge stopped him from deploying the Guard in Portland, Oregon, amid protests and civil unrest. Simultaneously, reports indicate that the Texas National Guard is preparing to deploy in Chicago, marking yet another instance of federal intrusion into local governance. Republicans have long argued that Democratic-run cities like Chicago, New York, California, and Portland have become centres of crime and disorder. Democrats, meanwhile, see this as political overreach and a federal attempt to militarise domestic politics and punish political opponents. These contrasting views define the contours of what could become the battle lines between America’s two dominant parties as the nation heads towards its next midterm elections.

Perhaps at every step, the presidency itself is being redefined. Institutions in the US which were once considered the safety valves of American democracy, now appear weakened or unable to contain Trump’s frantic race against time to institute a lasting conservative legacy. His relentless pursuit of dominance, often through executive fiat or aggressive political posturing, has strained the delicate equilibrium of checks and balances that underpins American governance.Trump’s legal battles with universities over ideological and funding disputes, his open confrontation with the courts, and his reimagining of America’s “golden age” as a compelling fusion of military might and economic coercion all mark a fundamental shift in American political culture. His willingness to alter the boundaries of America’s tolerance for military use and push the outer limits of presidential authority potentially crosses the red lines drawn by the US constitution. What once served as inviolable limits on executive power now seem negotiable in Trump’s vision of governance. Moreover, Trump’s rhetoric against what he labels “domestic terrorism” has introduced a dangerous moral elasticity in defining who constitutes an internal threat.

When Trump first came to office, he brought with him a sense of buoyant enthusiasm that electrified his support base. Within government circles, too, the early period of his administration was defined by the audacity to challenge the status quo. But Trump’s attempt to manage unpredictability has always relied on his insistence on personal loyalty. His inner circle filled with confidants and loyalists reflected his broader philosophy of governance: loyalty over merit. This desire for control, framed as a defence against instability, has paradoxically made governance itself more erratic and impulsive.

Where Trump’s second term differs from his first is in the larger global context. The continuing conflict in Europe and the turmoil in the Middle East have profoundly reshaped the contours of US politics and foreign policy. These crises have ruptured traditional expectations about stability and global order, providing Trump a convenient backdrop to project himself as a leader restoring American primacy amid chaos. In reality, the crises have also deepened internal fractures, those between the executive and legislature, between federal and state authorities, and within American society itself. The second defining feature of Trump’s renewed agenda is its unapologetic focus on naked economic self-interest. Gone is the earlier pretence of a rules-based global order. In its place stands a transactional approach that views diplomacy through the lens of immediate profit and national gain. Such economic nationalism, while resonant with sections of the American working class, undermines the moral and institutional credibility of the US abroad.

The US government under Trump may be steadily chipping away at the institutional foundations upon which American democracy was built. The country’s political structure, anchored in separation of powers, rule of law, and bureaucratic neutrality, now faces an unprecedented internal test. A mix of internal factors such as polarisation, cultural wars, populist mobilisation, and external factors including global instability, trade wars, and economic anxiety has shaped the Trump administration’s iconoclastic stance toward institutions. Trump is, in essence, the embodiment of the iconoclast who believes that the liberal order and its accompanying institutions must be dismantled and rebuilt for a new era.

This iconoclasm is not merely rhetorical. Trump’s vision is performative, symbolic, and often intentionally provocative. Symbolism lies at the heart of his politics—each decision, post, or rally crafted to amplify division, dramatise dissent, and consolidate control. With Trump, symbolism is magnified through action: firing officials publicly, challenging court orders, threatening shutdowns, and pushing the US government into brinkmanship scenarios.The recent government shutdown crisis offers perhaps the clearest manifestation of America’s weakening political fabric. What was once a sign of fiscal disagreement has now evolved into a weapon of political warfare used to paralyse governance and demonstrate partisan superiority.

Trump is both a product and a producer of institutional decline.Yet, even as he dismantles these institutions, he remains dependent on them for legitimacy. His battles with the courts, the media, and the bureaucracy are not simply about power but about redefining what power means in America. The weakening of the US political and institutional fabric manifested in partisan paralysis, weaponised bureaucracy, and an increasingly unstable executive-legislative balance reflects not merely Trump’s flaws, but the deeper malaise of a democracy caught in its own contradictions.Trump stands apart from all his predecessors not because he discovered the system’s weaknesses, but because he exploited them openly and without restraint. His legacy, therefore, may not only be measured in policies or political victories but in the lasting damage to the norms and institutions that once defined the American Republic. In the iconoclast’s battle within, America’s greatest struggle is not with Trump himself but with what it allows him to become.