On January 20, 2025, Donald J. Trump became the second U.S. President to serve two non-consecutive terms by defeating incumbent Vice-President Kamala Harris. The first, Grover Cleveland, defeated incumbent Benjamin Harrison; Harrison denied Cleveland a second consecutive term in the prior election. Like Cleveland in 1888 and 1892, the issue of tariffs was a large part of Trump’s campaign rhetoric. Cleveland lost a second consecutive term in 1888 by supporting lower tariffs to protect consumers, and returned to the White House in 1893 as a result of the impact of his predecessor’s reliance on tariffs that resulted in labor strikes and increased consumer costs. Unlike Cleveland, Donald Trump campaigned in 2024 on raising tariffs. They are but one issue from the 2024 campaign that will impact how well he delivers on his many election promises, some of which will have global implications. 

Projections about the second Trump administration and its challenges require an understanding of the campaign dynamics that returned him to office. A historic reality is that candidates who campaign largely on domestic and economic issues ultimately have to deal with international crises that can be their undoing. Trump is not eligible for a third term due to the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice”; thus, he does not have to worry about reelection if he fails to deliver. However, he could suffer losses in the midterm elections in 2026 and lose his already razor thin majorities in one or both houses of Congress (the House has a five-vote Republican majority, and the Senate majority is by six), this could damage Republican hopes to maintain the White House.    

What Produced a Trump Return?

The seeds for Trump’s 2024 victory were sown when President Joe Biden decided to run for re-election in spite of the fact that he would be 86 at the end of that term. Biden had not explicitly stated that he would serve one term, but there was speculation that he would due to his age. Many saw a statement in a March 2020 speech as an indication that he would be a transitional president: “Look, I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else. There’s an entire generation of leaders you saw stand behind me. They are the future of this country”. 

As the 2024 election drew closer there was concern that Biden was not fit for a second term due to frequent misstatements and confusion. His 2024 State of the Union Address allayed some of these concerns with sixty-two percent of viewers indicating that his policies would move the country in the “right direction” and he was seen as having “performed well and put up a strong fight”. Trump, who ignored the primary debates and largely campaigned against Biden rather than his Republican opponents, used similar tactics to those in 2020 when he called Biden “sleepy Joe” and questioned his mental acuity. Trump’s relentless attacks on Biden and his penchant for using “alternative facts,” chipped away at confidence in Biden. 

The June 27, 2024 debate between Trump and Biden raised, among the Democratic leadership, concerns about Biden’s fitness to run and serve four more years. It took Biden nearly a month to withdraw and endorse Harris as a way to unify the party and avoid a hurried competition for the nomination before the Democratic National Convention. 

Harris quickly pivoted to the top of the ticket, selected her running mate Minnesota Governor Tim Walz—a folksy former high school football coach and former member of Congress, oversaw a successful convention, and hit the campaign trail nonstop until election day. Technically, Harris ran a good campaign, but her message did not resonate with many of Biden’s 2020 supporters. Harris had seven million fewer votes than Biden in 2020, and she lost ground with key constituent groups such as Black men, Latinos, Arab Americans, young voters, and suburban voters especially in battleground states. 

Harris’ campaign messaging missed the mark in understanding that it “was the economy, stupid” that was the primary issue for many of the voters she lost. In fact, the economy was by far the most pressing issue for voters in every poll taken before and after the election with as many as ninety percent rating it as extremely or very important in a Gallup poll. She did not sufficiently address the concerns that many Americans had over the cost of groceries, gasoline, and housing, and that some causes of inflation were long-term pandemic effects which Biden mitigated. The Biden economy was strong on most indicators and inflation was going down, but record stock markets don’t help the average worker, and low unemployment does not mean a living wage for many who are employed. Exit polls showed that “Some two-thirds (sixty-seven percent) of voters said the condition of the economy was “not good/poor”, and only thirty-two percent thought the economy was “excellent/good”. The media acknowledged, in the final days of the Biden administration, that they did not give his economy the credit it deserved, leading to the perception that things were worse than they were. The Washington Post headline on January 9, 2025, read: “Surprise! The Media Just Discovered that Bidenomics Works. Trump is getting a strong economy. If only the media had explained the Biden economic achievements” . 

Harris, however, needed to, but failed to make the case for Biden’s economic successes. It is not something that can be explained in a 30-second ad, but it could be explained in a debate that is watched by millions. In her only debate against Trump, she made a strategic mistake of not directly responding to the first question. Moderator David Muir asked: “I want to begin tonight with the issue voters repeatedly say is their number one issue, and that is the economy and the cost of living in this country. . . . When it comes to the economy, do you believe Americans are better off than they were four years ago?” Harris directly ignored the question and launched into her background and “opportunity economy”, with only a passing comment about the cost of housing and goods for young families. She did not explain, for example, acknowledge that a major cause of the high price of eggs—avian flu—is out of the president’s control, or that four years ago there was an expanded Child Tax Credit and Economic Impact Payments to a large number of households that disappeared after the pandemic waned. Biden’s American Rescue Plan helped families in 2021, reduced the length of the recession, and lowered unemployment. 

Most importantly, Harris did not show empathy for those who have not recovered from the pandemic or struggled before it happened. She needed to start her response with an acknowledgement of voters’ pain rather than with her own story. In reflecting on the election on “Meet the Press” on January 7, 2025, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer admitted that Democrats up and down the ticket did not discuss the economy in ways that appealed to voters: “But all too often . . . we talked about the mechanics of the legislation and the details of the legislation and we really didn’t show the kind of empathy and concern . . . to average working families who didn’t realize how much we had done and how much we care for them”. 

Throughout the campaign, the achievements of the Biden administration and Congress were not sufficiently emphasized, nor were the factors beyond the president’s control highlighted. Democrats have played identity politics in the past few elections, and they often appear to be a party of the elite. Hillary Clinton’s 2016 description of half of Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables” did not help the image. While she went on to say that the other half “feel that the government has let them down” and are “desperate for change … Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well”, she didn’t connect with them and neither did Harris. Biden was more relatable with his blue-collar background and labor advocacy but that relationship was lost in 2024.

Harris also overplayed the abortion card because ten states had amendments or referenda related to the issue, and she expected it to boost women’s turnout. Her strategists wrongly believed that those who supported abortion rights would also support her campaign. That was not the case and should have been obvious from previous votes on the issue such as in Kansas, a red state, that defeated an anti-abortion amendment by 18 points in 2022 during a primary election in which voters without a declared party could vote on the amendment alone. In many of the states where pro-choice measures passed such as Missouri, Nevada, Montana, and Arizona, Trump won. It was possible for voters to protect abortion rights and vote for the man who said he would lower their cost of living. During the final days of the campaign, Harris sent her husband to Florida—a state she was unlikely to carry—to campaign on their proposed abortion rights amendment rather than to a swing state to talk about the economy.  

Harris had other crucial factors working against her, too. Biden put her in charge of the border—a key issue with seventy-two percent of voters listing it as extremely or very important in the Gallup poll. This was a no-win situation for Harris. Biden relied on Congress to fix the border and immigration issues, but they didn’t. In 2024, a bipartisan bill was defeated when Trump instructed Republicans to vote against it so that he would have a voting issue at the polls. If Biden had issued his Executive Order tightening the border earlier than June 4, 2024, some of Trump’s arguments against Harris’ failures would have been mitigated. Harris also suffered from the fate of most sitting vice-presidents in American history who made a run for the presidency—they can’t escape a president’s negatives. When George H.W. Bush went from second in command directly to the presidency in 1987, he was the first sitting vice-president since Martin Van Buren in 1837 to do so. Harris lost votes among Arab and Muslim Americans as a result of the war in Gaza, especially in the key state of Michigan, where some turned to Trump and others to third party candidates. The war in Gaza alienated many younger voters as was witnessed by campus protests. While foreign policy, which included the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, was ranked highly by only four percent of voters in exit polls, it impacted results for specific groups who made a difference in states such as Michigan. 

Harris also faced misogyny. Some Americans were simply not ready for a woman candidate and Donald Trump worked especially hard to turn out the male vote. The misogyny factor also played out in the desire for many who supported Trump to look for a leader who would fight for them. Trump’s personal attacks on Harris called into question her intelligence, competence, and work ethic. He called her “the worst”, “slow”, and described her as having “low IQ” and “lazy as hell”; he criticized her for her failures on the border and in foreign affairs. Trump contrasted himself as a fighter and frequently described himself as “the only one” who can accomplish something. His raised hand and defiant pose after escaping an assassination attempt created an iconic image of a fearless man who doesn’t give up. 

Rhetorically, Trump is an anomaly in American politics. He is caught in frequent lies including over thirty in each of his two debates in 2024 and plays into fears that are often baseless (crime, for example, is down and is not fueled by the presence of undocumented immigrants; immigrants did not eat cats and dogs or destroy apartment complexes; and the economy was not worse than it was when he left office). He was sentenced on January 10, 2025, on thirty-four felony counts—the only convicted felon to sit in the White House—but he talks about law and order. He insults opponents and heads of state or entire countries and admires strongmen and dictators but says he can better negotiate to protect the country. He uses race-based attacks on immigrants but gets votes from minorities and the Latino community. He has experienced numerous bankruptcies and business failures but is seen as a brilliant businessman who can improve the economy. His rhetoric divides the country while uniting his supporters through the age-old tactic of creating an enemy (in this case, immigrants) whom he blames for the U.S. ‘s problems, and then offers himself as the solution by executing deportations. He is seen as a counter to “politics as usual”, and that is an accurate assessment. The test for the next four years is if that approach can produce the results he promised.

Can Trump Deliver on his Promises?

Trump’s rhetoric is full of hyperbole and bombast but also promises. Many of them were promised to occur on “Day 1” or even before the inauguration. In August 2024, PBS News (U.S. Public Broadcasting System) listed 24 consistent promises—some of which were made in the first term as well but were not entirely achieved. As with most presidential elections occurring after the fall of the Soviet Union, with the exception of 2004, platforms rely heavily on domestic issues because most Americans only focus on their own lives and lack a solid understanding of the interplay between domestic and foreign policy or the interrelationship of nations. 

Whether Trump can deliver on his promises in the long term depends on two major factors: how global events impact the U.S. and whether he can maintain control of Congress for four years. The former requires no more Russian-type invasions or Gazas to distract him from a domestic agenda, and the latter is partially dependent on whether he resolves the pocketbook issues of interest rates and housing, rent, grocery, and gasoline prices. If he doesn’t deliver on the issues that affect his base, his slim majorities will be threatened; all of the rhetoric in the world cannot salvage an angry Republican electorate that either turns on Republican incumbents or stays home as the Trump administration heads into its final two lame-duck years. 

Rather than examine all twenty-four promises, the major ones are considered. They fall into four categories: economics, immigration and the border, crime and safety, and global issues of war and peace. 

The economy was the top issue on voters’ minds with eighty-one percent listing it as very important in their vote according to the Pew Research Center. As mentioned earlier, the Biden economy, in terms of major indicators, was— and remains—in good shape, with inflation cooling to 2.4 percent at election time, although it had been 1.4 percent when Trump left office. The average between the two elections was 5.8 percent, largely fueled by pandemic relief and pandemic shortages that started under Trump. Gasoline prices had fallen by 8.1 percent at election time. However, Trump claimed in his debate with Harris that “We have inflation like very few people have ever seen before. Probably the worst in our nation’s history. We were at twenty-one percent. But that’s being generous because many things are fifty, sixty, seventy, and eighty percent higher than they were just a few years ago”. In actuality, the worst was 23.7 percent in 1920, and it was worse in the 1970s and 1980s than now. Trump may see the inflation rate go down slightly, but external factors affecting the price of eggs or gasoline are largely out of the control of a president, and if he implements tariffs as promised, the cost will be borne by consumers on a wide range of products. Canada prepared a list of possible retaliatory tariffs if Trump still goes ahead and implements the twenty-five percent tariffs on Canadian goods. Some prices in the United States may stabilize, but it is unlikely there will be widespread drops. In fact, many may go up if farm labor is affected by deportations along with tariffs. If inflation declines, Trump may compare the new rate to the mythical rates from the debates through alternative facts. However, he will only convince his followers of his success if their grocery bills and gas prices actually decline. 

Trump promised that on Day One he would “begin the largest deportation operation in American history” and “will terminate every single open border policy of the Biden-Harris administration, and we will seal the border”. There is no doubt that he is currently doing everything he can to fulfill this promise. In fact, Congress is already assisting him despite bipartisan votes on the Laken Riley Act that would detain undocumented immigrants who commit theft as a way of preventing worse crimes. The crime wave that this legislation is meant to prevent is virtually non-existent as undocumented individuals commit crimes at lower rates than citizens, including violent crimes. An analysis of the Act by immigration experts points out unintended consequences that could result in Dreamers, who are currently protected, and legal individuals being erroneously accused and deported. The act is likely to have little impact on crime rates which have dropped for two consecutive years. 

The number of undocumented people in the United States is uncertain but was estimated to be about 10.5 million in 2021; Trump has been promising to deport 15-20 million. It is doubtful that he will reach numbers anywhere close to that, and if he does, he will devastate industries such as agriculture, meat packing, and construction. Midwestern states such as Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa depend on immigrant workers for meat packing plants and one Kansas news service reported that “[m]ass deportations would endanger Kansas’ meat economy: ‘It would be a ghost town’”. Multiple news outlets warn that mass deportations will create a “hole in the labor force,” leading to lost services and higher prices, thus negating one of Trump’s main economic promises and forcing his rhetoric to face reality.

Trump wants to cut government spending to reduce the deficit, but he is on record as saying that he would do whatever it takes to fund up to 100,000 new prison beds and other costs of deportation. Deportation is an example of the interplay between domestic and foreign policy as countries on or near the U.S. border are reacting to Trump’s sending millions their way. For example, President Xiomara Castro of Honduras threatened that a U.S. military base in her country could “lose all reason to exist” and result in “a change in our policies with the U.S.”.

On the issue of crime and safety, Trump will not reduce crime in a significant way with deportations of undocumented immigrants or even those who are here legally but could be deported if they engage in criminal activity. If Americans have a fear regarding their safety, it is gun violence, and one of Trump’s promises as outlined by PBS was protecting Second Amendment rights. In other words, do not expect mass shootings to decline or for Americans’ fears about their children’s safety to be relieved. 

When it comes to war and peace, Trump claimed in the debate with Harris that neither the invasion of Ukraine or Hamas’ attack on Israel would have occurred if he had remained president. He also promised in regard to Gaza that, “I will get that settled and fast. And I’ll get the war with Ukraine and Russia ended. If I’m President-Elect, I’ll get it done before even becoming president.to end both wars expeditiously and even possibly before January 20.” The Gaza ceasefire was announced before the inauguration but it was the result of negotiations started by the U.S. months before Trump’s team joined the discussions. Both Trump and Biden are taking credit. 

Instead of addressing  those two fronts publicly before the ceasefire announcements, Trump’s major foreign policy focus was on taking over Greenland, the Panama Canal, and considering Canada as a 51st state. The last was assumed to be added for humor, although Canadians do not seem to have taken it that way; however, Trump declared in his announcement of tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China that without the trade surplus with the U.S., “Canada ceases to exist as a viable country [and] should become our cherished 51st state.” 

He is serious about the other two. He sent Donald Trump, Jr. to Greenland before the inauguration to test the waters and threatened to use force to retake the Canal. In his first two weeks in office, however, Trump has refocused his policies on Gaza suggesting that Egypt, Jordan and other Arab countries take in the Palestinians, the U.S. take over the Gaza strip, and Palestinians and be displaced en masse. The suggestion was roundly rejected in a statement by “top diplomats from Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, as well as Hussein al-Sheikh, a senior Palestinian official who serves as the main liaison with Israel, and Arab League chief Ahmed Aboul Gheit.” The diplomats noted that Trump’s plan had potential to further destabilize the region. 

There is legitimate concern among European allies that the aid the Biden administration sent to Ukraine will end and “that Trump may try to reverse his predecessor’s decisions [on Russian sanctions] simply because they were made by Biden, without much thought to the consequences of such steps for European allies”. Despite Trump’s claims that he can end the conflict in Gaza suggesting that both sides are ready for him to broker a deal, the Palestinian Authority is said to have “fears that US President-elect Donald Trump is amenable to sidelining the PA’s current leaders in a future post-war Gaza Strip in favour of the United Arab Emirates and its Palestinian allies” which have “led the PA to launch a bigger raid on the city of Jenin as opposed to a smaller operation in the Tulkarm refugee camp”. Because of Trump’s known unpredictability and volatility, the world is watching his every move and anticipating worse case scenarios. 

Trump’s popularity is based in part on his unorthodox approach to politics, especially his use of threats as a negotiating tool. The anti-government sentiment that has grown in the United States over the past several decades of gridlock and division in Congress also fueled his rise. People want to believe that Donald Trump can “drain the swamp” and put the average person at the center of his policy decisions. His rhetoric makes them true believers, but the test of his ultimate popularity with the MAGA constituency largely depends on what he can do to improve their daily lives, and the realities explained here could make that difficult if not impossible to accomplish.