The further we move into the “Golden Age” proclaimed by US President Donald Trump, the darker and more confusing the path becomes.

Draconian tariffs that shook the US and global economies like an earthquake are being announced and then postponed... Raids on allegedly illegal migrants who, as has been repeatedly emphasized, have committed serious crimes – but more and more often these raids are on legal, law-abiding and useful immigrants The closure of government agencies, mass layoffs of employees continue unabated (the Tax Service, in particular, was affected in the midst of the tax filing season)... Attacks on elite, globally significant universities, threats to take away their funding (which is beyond the powers of the presidential branch of government)…

Hundreds of lawsuits – and a terrible search for ways to circumvent court decisions, including those of the Supreme Court... According to some experts, the country is on the verge of a constitutional crisis.

The “golden era” looks like a children's room where small pranksters deliberately scattered toys, breaking some of them to see how they work from the inside. “Put everything back immediately!” – There was no one to shout at, no adults left in the room...

Ukraine, which is desperately fighting a much superior enemy, is a toy for the “mischievous” children, they can twist and throw it around like a ball...

However, this “children's room” is actually a global battlefield that will determine the fate of countries and peoples in the near future.

“Declaration of independence”... from the laws of economics?

The announcement of the trade war against the whole world on April 2 was solemn: President Trump proclaimed not just an “economic emergency” but also a “Liberation Day” for the United States.

"This is our declaration of economic independence. For years, hardworking American citizens were forced to sit on the sidelines as other nations got rich and powerful, much of it at our expense. But now it’s our turn to prosper," the president said (see the full speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ2Q9hJyh_Q).

He was presented with a large board with a list of 110 countries for which the White House had solemnly announced the introduction of a 10% basic tariffs on all imports from these countries, regardless of their size and share in world trade (the list even included the Macdonald Islands near Antarctica, where there are no people at all and only penguins live, which caused a flurry of satirical comments on social media). The absence of Russia, Belarus, Iran, and Cuba from the list was striking.

In addition to this basic tariffs, additional tariffs were announced in a more differentiated form: in particular, 24% for China, 20% for the EU; the “worst exploiters” – Canada and Mexico, with whom the United States has had perhaps the most intense trade relations, border trade, and rapid bilateral tourism – also received 20%.

For some reason, however, stock exchanges and markets did not share the joy of liberation. The New York Stock Exchange showed the deepest drop since the covid pandemic. This looks like the initiation of a global economic crisis. Experts have started talking about the possibility of rising inflation and a general decline in the American economy, almost on the verge of the Great Recession of 2007-2008.

The markets were most disturbed by the generalized approach of Trump (and his advisors on this issue, primarily Peter Navarro) to such a complex and multifaceted matter as foreign trade. Indeed, the United States has accumulated a national debt of more than $30 trillion, but not because of deliberate “exploitation” of other countries (with the possible exception of China, which does trade unfairly by manipulating the currency), but mainly because of the international distribution of markets and production of various goods and services, which has indeed been developing for decades and takes into account the national characteristics of the economies of different countries.

In particular, both the United States and the EU have been moving production facilities to China, Vietnam, and Cambodia (and the United States has been moving them to Canada and Mexico) for 30 years, specializing instead in the service and high-tech markets; and China and some other Asian countries have flooded Western markets with cheap consumer goods and critical microelectronics products. The economies of the United States, Canada, Mexico, and the EU are so intertwined that supply chains that had been in place for decades were suddenly cut off by these “universal” tariffs.

Economists began to warn Americans about the rapid rise in prices of everyday goods, such as medicines and food, as well as durable goods, cars, etc. The tariffs make imports more expensive, and the return of manufacturing industries to the United States will lead to a sharp increase in the cost of “import-substituted” goods, as labor in the United States is much more expensive than in China and the countries of the “global south.” Moreover, there is already a lack of production capacity in the United States, because since production was moved abroad, these facilities have not been developed, modernized, or upgraded and have been falling into decline. Bringing production back to the United States would essentially mean bringing the country back to the last century, from which it had almost left as a result of rapid scientific and technological development, moving into another era – the post-industrial era.

The search for ways to deter Trump from such sledgehammer blows to the American and global economic systems has begun. In particular, at least three bills have been introduced in Congress (for more details: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-weigh-using-power-congress-rein-trump-tariffs-rcna199555), which limit the president's authority to impose tariffs, NBC News notes. Two libertarian groups – the New Civil Liberties Alliance and the Liberty Justice Center (which represents 5 small business owners) – have filed a lawsuit against the introduction of tariffs, because even declaring a state of emergency in the economy does not give the president the authority to impose tariffs, which are, in fact, taxes on American consumers.

Moreover, disputes began within the presidential team on the basis of tariffs, in particular between Elon Musk (who lost a significant part of his capital to tariffs and public anger) and Navarro.

All this forced Trump to hastily announce on April 9 the postponement of the introduction of the most draconian tariffs on 90 days, including against the EU, Canada and Mexico, but not the basic 10% – they are introduced immediately.

The postponement did not apply to China – a real trade war has been launched with it. Both sides are increasing rates and duties. Currently, the US imposes 245% tariffs on Chinese goods (electronic goods are temporarily exempt from these duties), and China, accordingly, imposes duties on imports from the US.

After the postponement, the markets recovered somewhat. (Incidentally, such “swings” have helped some enterprising players instantly grab a considerable sum on the stock market, notes Robert Frank, CNBC – https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-wealthy-are-loading-up-on-cash-gold-and-family-trusts-during-market-turmoil/ar-AA1CH9ya?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=dbe6d1699e94457ea006f2bf69378db1&ei=38. In particular, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene is suspected of this, writes Brian Metzger, Business Insider) – https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/marjorie-taylor-greene-bought-thousands-of-dollars-in-stock-right-before-trump-s-tariff-pause-sent-markets-soaring/ar-AA1CTZR9?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=LCTS&cvid=a9e2c5e408064012b6f56f023fce6139&ei=60. 

However, the stock exchanges did not achieve "domestic" indicators. After all, the postponement of tariffs is only a temporary step that will not replace the lack of strategy, clarity and consistency in declaring a trade war that was not urgently needed, as well as the introduction of a “state of emergency” in the economy. The most important thing has been lost: the reputation of the US as a reliable trade and business partner, and therefore the world economic system has lost the support on which it has been based for decades. Even confidence in the dollar, which until recently was considered the reference currency precisely because of the reliability of the US, has been shaken. What this will all lead to, economists cannot even predict.

The resilience of the global economy is currently being tested by a “reset of the global trading system,” which threatens to cause turbulence in financial markets, said International Monetary Fund Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva – https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/us-tariffs-will-weaken-global-economy-and-trigger-inflation-but-not-a-global-recession-imf-says/ar-AA1D7ISK?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=LCTS&cvid=0feee553b027414f91984eb804b3b303&ei=44.

Are all immigrants criminals?

The Democrats opened the borders, let in millions of criminal aliens, whom “all countries of the world send to us from prisons and mental hospitals” – these “mantras” in various variations are repeated by Trump almost every day to this day, equating to criminals all people who in different years got to the US with some violations of the legal entry process. It is likely that he has not yet been explained that such violations occur not only with a criminal purpose, but primarily because people who seek asylum in the US from political persecution are often unable to overcome the complexities of the legal immigration process; often such people really flee from the threat of imprisonment, or even murder, but not at all because of criminal offenses. In other words, both with trade and with immigration – a simplified, generalized, “mass-corporate” approach to multifaceted and contradictory phenomena. The raids are even carried out in churches, hospitals, schools. The immigration police, which are given certain numbers, do not take into account the individual circumstances of those who fall into their hands.

The most resonant in this regard was the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia (among many sources, see, in particular, Daniela Silva, NBC News) – https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kilmar-abrego-garcia-deported-el-salvador-trump-immigration-what-know-rcna201708 – a native of El Salvador, who came to the United States at the age of 16 in 2012, married a US citizen, they raised three children – also US citizens. He was captured on March 13 during a mass deportation of more than 200 immigrants from El Salvador, who were collectively accused of belonging to the notorious MS-13 gang. They were literally flown overnight, without trial or investigation, to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador, from which it is impossible to escape, and torture is commonplace. As for Garcia, the US Department of Justice itself admitted that a mistake had been made: back in 2019 (during Trump's first term), the court ruled that he was not subject to deportation because he would face death "from local gangs" if he returned.

Garcia's case reached the US Supreme Court (where three of the 9 judges are Trump appointees from his first term!), which unanimously ruled: The White House must take steps to return him home. Currently, the administration is evading the Supreme Court's decision in every way possible and calling Garcia a terrorist – without any evidence.

This case, along with several other immigration cases, has brought the country to the brink of a constitutional crisis, with the president overstepping his authority and attempting to undermine the authority of the judicial branch, which for now maintains political independence.

Moreover, Trump has repeatedly stated that he would like to send US citizens who have committed serious crimes to this Salvadoran prison. His own nominee, Attorney General Pam Bondi, has responded that this is not legal. “If we need to build more prisons in our country, we will,” she said – https://www.alternet.org/pam-bondi-imprison-citizens/.

The policy of mass deportations is increasingly being challenged. However, Trump, with a stubbornness that deserves better application, repeats his intention to deport “all criminal aliens.” In particular, he has deprived state funding by presidential order of lawyers who provided legal aid... to minor immigrants who arrived in the United States unaccompanied by adults (26,000 of them; one of many sources: Rebecca Santana, AP – https://apnews.com/article/trump-legal-aid-unaccompanied-children-immigration-court-127a69ce69573d2d16c72a74dacef3ab).

So children who have obviously fled, perhaps from a threat to them, to a foreign country, are left alone with American courts?! (The simplest solution to this problem: to organize the adoption of these children by American families. After all, those parents who knowingly let or sent their children on such a "journey" should be deprived of parental rights, even in absentia).

Is the US heading towards a hybrid system?

More and more experts see in the above and many other actions of Trump and his administration a purposeful attempt to destroy the institutional foundations of the American democratic system (the system of checks and balances, the independence of the branches of power, the autonomy of universities, etc.) and to make a rapid transition either to authoritarianism, or, rather, to a “hybrid” system.

Trump’s tariffs policy is a sign of the decline of democracy in the US and the transition to “a strange hybrid system that combines features of both democracy and autocracy,” notes Zach Beauchamp, Vox. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-real-reason-trump-is-destroying-the-economy/ar-AA1CfJaz?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=LCTS&cvid=a5771a5e460140989bd927db337dfef3&ei=10

“On the one hand, the electorate that elected Trump supports his policies. Sometimes, demagogues win elections in democracies – a problem so old that it can be found discussed in Plato’s Republic. On the other hand, democracies rely on legal rules that limit executive power, preventing any such demagogue from becoming a dictator. In the American system, this means a complex system of constitutional checks and balances, one of which is the Constitution, which grants taxing power only to Congress. However, instead of seeking legislative authorization to raise tariffs, Trump is using a broadly worded emergency law to bypass the legislative branch,” Beauchamp explains, noting that tariffs are essentially a tax imposed on imported goods.

However, as the author shows, this is only a symptom. In fact, the American democratic system has long ceased to function properly.

He sees the decline of democracy in the United States primarily in the decline of Congress’s ability to exercise its own powers, which are a means of restraining excessive encroachments by the executive branch.

“The main culprit is Congress, which – through a combination of political cowardice and a lack of cross-party cooperation – has become unable and unwilling to act as the supreme legislative body. Instead, it has begun to delegate significant amounts of its own powers to the executive branch.

Sometimes it was done intentionally, empowering the president to shape policy through the executive branch, creating the “administrative state” that conservatives denounce. Sometimes it was unintentional, Congress giving the president vague emergency powers that were meant to operate in narrow circumstances but in practice allowed the president to act unilaterally in all sorts of normal political disputes. And sometimes Congress simply did nothing on crucial policy issues, forcing the president to try to resolve them with a questionably broad interpretation of his own powers.”

The judicial branch is also to blame: “while the Supreme Court has occasionally intervened to address presidential abuses, it has done so haphazardly and biasedly. Moreover, it has long indulged the president on key issues such as immigration, trade, and war,” Beauchamp notes.

He also notes that the system of restraint included internal levers: advisory councils on various issues in the White House; informal norms and moral qualities of previous presidents.

“It is now clear that all these internal mechanisms were voluntary. Trump has neutralized the internal levers of the executive branch and (obviously!) does not possess the qualities of his own judgment that we expect from people in the highest positions,” the author reflects.

“Tariffs are one of the most striking examples of why this is important for everyone: without democracy, the quality of our politics deteriorates to dangerous levels,” Zach Beauchamp concludes.

Another expert, Trevor Potter (founder and chairman of the Campaign Legal Center, former adviser to John McCain’s presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2008), analyzes how Trump managed to push the boundaries of his powers through a barrage of presidential executive orders – https://www.newsweek.com/no-mr-president-executive-orders-are-not-royal-decrees-opinion-2057160.

“Executive orders do not create new laws – only Congress can do that,” Potter emphasizes.

“Some of President Trump’s executive orders are within the bounds of the law, including those that repeal President Biden’s executive orders. However, many others are unconstitutional and illegal,” the author notes. Among them is the executive order on elections.

“This executive order directs several independent federal agencies to change federal election rules and requires Americans to go through unnecessary hurdles to register to vote. If these powers are enacted, they could disenfranchise millions of voters,” the expert warns. Meanwhile, “the president has no authority to issue this order. The Constitution expressly grants the power to hold federal elections to the states. It gives Congress, not the president, the authority to enact laws that establish national voting standards and override state election laws when necessary,” notes Trevor Potter.

Finally, I will quote the opinion of Yulia Nikolaeva (on Facebook), an immigration attorney.

“The most odious decisions are currently being introduced only with the use of emergency powers, which are provided for only in exceptional situations (...) A state of emergency is a legal concept, not a political, not an economic or philosophical one, so all the talk about the economic crisis, the dominance of vocism and the invasion of immigrants past the cash register is worthless – none of what was happening in the country at the time of the new administration falls under the legal definition of an “emergency”. The use of emergency powers in these conditions is nothing more than a legally untenable curtain for the rapid implementation of dubious decisions (...). The introduction of a state of emergency dangerously expands the powers of the president, while simultaneously removing a strip of procedural obstacles, minimizing the role of other branches of government and eliminating the ability of society to influence what is happening.”

So, the United States is now at a crossroads between preserving its democratic system and moving towards a hybrid system based on electoral law, but losing the levers to restrain the president from attempting to exceed the powers defined by the Constitution and laws. To do this, presidential candidates are over-exploiting the problems in the country, offering in bright speeches simplified, campaign, "mass" methods that inflame voters, but most often lead to loud, but superficial measures and decisions that not only do not contribute to solving problems, but also further complicate them, up to causing crises of national and even global scale "out of the blue".

The most important sign that the country is moving from democracy to a hybrid system is the inability to cooperate between different branches of government, political forces and parties, the loss of the ability to make centric compromises. In the USA, instead of traditional inter-party cooperation at all levels, there is now hostility between parties, the use of mutual accusations (sometimes justified, but more often exaggerated) as an argument for exceeding powers; neglect of the interests of the minority that was defeated in the elections (almost 50% of voters!).

Under such circumstances, this minority resorts to countermeasures, which are often also radical. There is a danger that in the wake of Trump’s unsuccessful policy, the Democratic Party will resort to a sharp shift “to the left”, which we will observe in the midterm elections next year.

Foreign policy: from alliances to agreements?

Trump’s attempts to steer the United States down this path are complemented by his efforts to completely restructure the country’s foreign policy. Instead of the traditional reliance on preserving the integrity of Euro-Atlantic civilization and its values, an unsystematic, chaotic policy is proposed, based on the carrot-and-stick extortion of certain individual bilateral agreements in which the interests of the United States would prevail, rather than mutual benefit.

This approach fundamentally does not distinguish between the aggressor and the victim, the “forces of good” and “evil,” which is clearly evident in Trump’s attitude to the Russian-Ukrainian war. Having assumed the role of a mediator, Trump actually indulges the aggressor and avoids direct support for Ukraine in every possible way, even going so far as to accuse it of having started the war. This policy reaches absurdity, in particular in the votes: on the UN General Assembly resolution on the 3rd anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, when the USA voted... together with the Russian Federation against the resolution; the failure to adopt the G7 resolution condemning another Russian war crime – the attack on Sumy on Palm Sunday, etc.

Step by step, Trump is drifting from the self-proclaimed role of a mediator towards justifying the aggressor. He does not care on what terms and in whose favor an "agreement" will (or will not) be concluded between the Russian Federation and Ukraine through his "mediation".

Democracy or hybridity – a defining issue for the West

The above-mentioned features, inherent in the current US, are gradually conquering Europe as well. Currently, the EU countries and the UK are clearly defending democratic values, becoming in fact their last stronghold. However, with each parliamentary or presidential election in almost every European country, radical forces like the Trumpists are winning more and more supporters, relentlessly advancing towards the positions on which domestic and foreign policy is formed.

The ability of democratic forces in European countries to remain within the limits of centrist positions, to maintain the ability to compromise; the ability of voters to evaluate the political programs and slogans of candidates and to refrain from the temptation of simplified solutions to urgent problems will determine whether the international order that has ensured peace and prosperity of Western civilization since the end of World War II will be preserved, at least in part.

In Europe, there is also the temptation of simple solutions. However, unlike the United States (which is “across the ocean”), Europe, especially in the east, has felt and understood the danger to itself from an aggressive Russia. After numerous attempts by France (including the early Macron), Germany (under Merkel and the early Scholz) and other countries to follow the path of economic and political agreements with the Putin regime, the leadership of European states, with the exception of Hungary and Slovakia, now sees the futility of this path.

Europe is now demonstrating the ability not only to independently unite efforts in protecting the remnants of an order based on the norms of the democratic world, but also to restrain the US intentions to leave Europe to its fate.

This is most clearly seen in the new policy of France, Britain, Italy and the EU leadership regarding the Russian-Ukrainian war. Since Trump took the White House, Europe has activated all its capabilities, trying, on the one hand, not to completely break with the US, and on the other, to significantly strengthen support for Ukraine compared to previous years.

However, Europe is also teetering on the brink of sliding into a Trumpist world. It is here that the battlefronts that will determine the future fate of Euro-Atlantic civilization lie. Ukraine is at the epicenter of these battles.