WHAT WILL DONALD TRUMP’S SECOND TERM BRING?
As Donald Trump prepares to assume the presidency for the second time next month, speculation about the nature of his second administration has reached fever pitch. While his first term was marked by executive overreach, frequent clashes with legal norms, and an unabashed disregard for the traditional boundaries of power, the real question now is whether this time will be different—not in moderation, but in ambition.
Three potential pathways lie ahead for Trump’s second term, each with stark implications for the future of the United States.
The first envisions a chaotic replay of his first term, rife with executive abuses but leaving the broader structure of American democracy intact. The second, more ominous scenario, suggests a gradual, calculated shift toward a “conservative democracy” modeled after Viktor Orbán’s Hungary—a system where new legal and institutional barriers would all but ensure perpetual Republican dominance.
Finally, the third, and most extreme path, posits a rapid descent into outright dictatorship, with emergency powers invoked to dismantle opposition entirely a la Vichy France, Pinochet’s Chile or Castro’s Cuba.
While these pathways are distinct, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The most plausible trajectory may be one that begins with the more familiar chaos of Pathway One but gradually evolves into the systemic authoritarian entrenchment of Pathway Two, ultimately culminating in Pathway Three’s dictatorship.
Ultimately, Greymantle views a simple replay of the first Trump term as unlikely. Donald Trump himself has changed dramatically since 2016, and so has the country.
When Trump as first elected to the U.S. presidency in 2016, his campaign was as disorganized by victory as some others have been by defeat. Trump thought that his past as a Democrat might make him an attractive deal-making partner for Democratic leaders such as Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. He was wrong. The American left reacted hysterically to Trump’s first victory and united in opposing him with a shrill energy.
Trump will not make the same mistake again. Hence, Greymantle’s view is that Trump’s second term will be a case of ‘No More Mr. Nice Guy: Three Possible Paths for a Second Trump Administration’.
In the following analysis, we will briefly outline each pathway, evaluate their relative likelihood, and consider the grave implications of this potential progression.
PATHWAY ONE: A RETURN TO TRUMP 1.0
The first and least transformative scenario would see Trump’s second administration mirroring the chaotic hallmarks of his first. This would include widespread disregard for legal guardrails, extensive use of executive orders to bypass Congress, a reliance on Twitter and other social media platforms to communicate directly with his political base, disregard of expert advice, frequent turnover of high-level staff, and a general erosion of the norms of political behavior without fundamentally altering the structure of the U.S. government.
In this pathway, Trump might continue to stoke partisan division and consolidate power through intimidation and loyalty tests, but he would fall short of institutionalizing these practices into law. His administration would remain mired in dysfunction, prone to scandals, and be reactive rather than proactive in governing. While the damage to democratic norms would persist, the fundamental structure of the U.S. system—its independent judiciary, robust federalism, and separation of powers—would largely survive intact.
This outcome, though destabilizing, would leave future administrations with the ability to repair much of the damage. However, the sheer unpredictability and chaos of this pathway would still carry significant risks, especially if combined with economic instability, international crises, or domestic unrest.
PATHWAY TWO: THE ORBAN PLAYBOOK
The second and more probable pathway envisions Trump’s second presidential administration actively working to reshape the United States into a “illiberal democracy” similar to Viktor Orbán’s Hungary. In this scenario, Trump and his allies would first employ legitimate legal mechanisms to dismantle the opposition’s ability to challenge Republican dominance. This would evolve, via a step by step process, into a veneer of legality as the judiciary and Congress came under greater levels of direct control by the administration.
Key steps in this pathway would likely include:
- Crushing Opposition Media: Trump has long railed against media outlets like MSNBC and the New York Times as ‘enemies of the people’. Under this pathway, his administration could use regulatory or legal tools to silence these voices, either by imposing crippling fines, forcing ownership changes, or even criminalizing dissent. We may be seeing the first steps in this direction with Trump’s threatened lawsuit against famed pollster Ann Selzer for releasing a poll shortly before the election that indicated Kamala Harris was ahead in Iowa (she actually wasn’t). Threats made before the election to pull the broadcasting license of CBS could also be acted upon in January.
- Eroding Institutional Checks and Balances: Whether by expanding the Supreme Court with loyalists, limiting judicial review, or passing laws that neuter state and local autonomy, Trump could ensure that Democratic opposition faces insurmountable structural barriers to political power by the middle of his second term in office. Trump may use a weakening of institutional checks and balances to both expand presidential powers, and potentially seek a third term.
- Purging Congress, the judiciary, the federal bureaucracy, and state legislatures of political opponents. The Heritage Foundation’s ‘Project 2025’ plan for the incoming administration focuses partly on reducing the number of federal employees and gutting or eliminating various federal agencies, including the EPA and the Dept. of Education. Trump and his allies have also spoken of a broader purge of so-called ‘deep state’ elements in the federal bureaucracy. These moves may only be the opening moves of a far more ambitious intention to purge and prosecute political opponents such as Liz Cheney, Joe Biden, and Adam Schiff. Politically motivated prosecutions may only be the start.
- Punishing Higher Education Institutions Controlled by the Opposition. As part of the incoming Trump administration’s campaign against ‘woke ideology’ in elite academic institutions and K-12 school curriculum, it is possible that the federal government may direct funding away from the Ivy League and other top schools and shift it towards academic entities whose ideas and values are more in line with the administration’s.
- Nationalizing the Election System: Using a pretext such as voter fraud or election integrity, the administration could place federal monitors in all 50 states, effectively ensuring that Republican candidates dominate future elections. While framed as a measure to “protect democracy,” this would amount to a de facto one-party electoral system.
The result would be a system where elections still occur, but their outcomes are heavily influenced by the overwhelming advantages stacked in favor of Republicans. Media and dissenting voices would be muzzled, advertising dollars would be channeled toward media organs seen as loyal to Trump, and the legislative process would gradually evolve into a rubber-stamp mechanism for the president’s agenda.
PATHWAY THREE: ESTABLISHING DICTATORSHIP BY EMERGENCY DECREE
The third and most extreme scenario would see Trump moving swiftly to consolidate absolute power. This could begin with the declaration of a state of emergency, citing national security threats or civil unrest. Using this pretext, Trump could quickly bypass Congress’s powers of oversight, review and restraint, suspend habeas corpus, and authorize mass arrests of political opponents.
Congress itself could be transformed into a mere ceremonial body, with dissenting members removed or imprisoned under dubious charges. Key institutions such as the Department of Justice, the military, and intelligence agencies would be swiftly purged of independent leadership and staffed exclusively with loyalists.
Under this pathway, elections would either be abolished outright or reduced to meaningless formalities. The United States would cease to function as a democracy in any recognizable sense, becoming instead a dictatorship centered entirely on Trump’s authority. The key historical precedent for this swift move to establish a dictatorship beneath the cloak of a spurious legality would be the Nazi seizure of power in Germany in 1933, when Hitler and his followers swiftly took control of all organs of state power.
While this pathway may seem extreme, it is not without precedent. Autocratic leaders worldwide have used similar tactics to dismantle democratic institutions under the guise of emergency measures. The key variable would be whether Trump perceives enough resistance—or enough opportunity—to justify such a drastic move.
PREDICTIVE WEIGHTS
While each pathway represents a distinct possibility for Trump’s second term, their likelihoods vary based on historical precedent, Trump’s past behavior, and the current political landscape.
- Pathway One (15%): The chaotic replay of Trump’s first administration is the least likely outcome. Trump’s allies and advisors have had four years to reflect on the shortcomings of his first term, and many have publicly expressed a desire to avoid its pitfalls. Additionally, Trump’s rhetoric since losing the 2020 election suggests a more ambitious agenda.
- Pathway Two (70%): The transformation of the U.S. into an “illiberal democracy” is by far the most plausible outcome. This pathway aligns with Trump’s inclination toward loyalty tests, his disdain for opposition, and the Republican Party’s increasing focus on consolidating structural advantages. Furthermore, this scenario would allow Trump to reshape the system in his favor without resorting to overtly authoritarian measures, giving it a veneer of legitimacy.
- Pathway Three (15%): The establishment of a dictatorship is an extreme but conceivable possibility. Trump has shown a willingness to test boundaries, and if faced with significant resistance or civil unrest, he could justify invoking emergency powers. However, the logistical and political challenges of such a move—combined with the risks of alienating key allies—make this pathway less likely.
THE FOURTH POSSIBLE PATHWAY: A GRADUAL TRANSITION
While these pathways are presented as distinct, they may not be mutually exclusive. The Trump administration could begin on Pathway One, echoing the chaotic governance style of his first term. Over time, however, this chaos could serve as a prelude to a more systematic consolidation of power, transitioning into Pathway Two’s illiberal, or “conservative democracy.”
From there, the line between Pathway Two and Pathway Three could blur. If the administration’s grip on power faced significant threats—whether from mass protests, unfavorable court rulings, or an economic crisis—the temptation to invoke emergency powers and move toward outright dictatorship could grow. In this sense, Pathways Two and Three may represent a continuum rather than a sharp divide.
This progression is not without precedent. Autocratic leaders often begin by exploiting existing systems before abandoning them entirely when they no longer serve their purposes. Trump’s history of escalating conflicts, coupled with his desire for loyalty and control, suggests that his administration could follow a similar trajectory.
If Trump chooses to take this fourth and last route by a series of largely intuitive and improvised steps, his path will be eased by trends that have been building in the U.S. for many years now: a growing conservative media ecosphere that follows its own rules and plays fast and loose with facts, a democratic decay across many regions of the U.S. as the ‘blue’ and ‘red’ portions of the country have been devolving into two parallel one-party states since at least the early 2000s, and the radicalization of the Republican base, a process which has been underway since the 1992 general election.
If we were to expand our predictive weighting of the possible pathways to include this fourth and final pathway, Greymantle would revise our weightings to: 10% for Pathway One, 60% for Pathway Two, 5% for Pathway Three, and 25% for Pathway Four.
THE MAN WILL MAKE THE MOMENT
The most telling factor in this process may be the nature of Trump himself – Trump’s personality and magical style of thinking and operating.
As we wrote on these pages in early November, a mere 48 hours before the November 5 election, Trump is more magician than politician, more sorcerer than businessman. He aims to bring about new realities by imagining them beforehand, and then conjuring them into being, or attempting to do so, by using the power of his personal charisma, media of all kinds – social media most especially – and scads of lies that bear a certain resemblance to the tricks of top illusionists, to bring these new realities into being.
Trump seldom likes to move quickly or precipitously. For a man who gambles with fate, Trump is in some ways not a natural risk taker. He likes to test the waters of any new situation cautiously, dipping his feet into the waters and them pulling back, only to dip his toes in again before wading in deeper, before making the final commitment to engage. Greymantle expects that Trump’s looming seizure of and consolidation of power will follow a similar pattern: a little bit at a time, and then…all at once.
A NOTE TO READERS ON OUR COMING PIVOT
It is because of the above considerations that we at Greymantle’s Politics and Culture have decided to adapt our reporting on the Second Trump Administration to cover matters of policy and whether we believe specific policies are likely to be effective or not. We will not be covering personalities in the incoming administration.
Nor will be responding to the variety of new scandals and controversies that are sure to crop up in short order. Nor will we be making regular pronouncements about whether we believe the administration is ‘fascist’ or not, or keep score on whether it has crossed the line from Pathway One to Pathway Two and so on.
No. To take such a route would be unwise. And personally dangerous. So, we’ll leave that work to the online arsonists and social media junkies. They’re welcome to it!
We have instead decided to shift our focus in the coming four years to questions of culture and technology, and how these will impact long-term political factors in the U.S. and elsewhere.
We will also be expanding our coverage of geopolitics and military affairs, as per a recent article authored by our contributor Richard Jupa on the Chinese Navy. We extend a hearty welcome to Mr. Jupa and look forward to more of his contributions to Greymantle. We will also be expanding our network of contributors.
If your heart’s desire, however, is to go down the ‘Resistance’ rabbit hole during Trump 2.0 and join the ‘rebel alliance’, these pages may not hold what interests you. But…we counsel you to be patient.
There will be samizdat aplenty in the coming years. A dear contact of ours in the political netherworld, a one Splintermind, is looking to offer such coverage in the coming months. It will not be available online.
Let us know if you have an interest, and we will get a message to him.
Until next time, Happy Holidays.
Greymantle
