The Social and Political Landscape: A Deepening Divide

The Erosion of Democratic Norms

Donald Trump’s second term signals a continuation of his leadership style that challenges the institutional frameworks underpinning American democracy. His previous tenure was marked by efforts to consolidate executive power, sideline traditional checks and balances, and question the legitimacy of electoral and judicial processes. The extent to which these tendencies will intensify over the next four years remains a critical issue for domestic governance and global democratic stability.

Historically, democratic institutions in the United States have been resilient in political disruption. However, the increasing politicisation of government agencies, the judiciary, and electoral mechanisms raises concerns about long-term institutional degradation. Trump’s return to office brings renewed scrutiny over the separation of powers, the role of federal oversight, and the precedent his leadership sets for future administrations.

The Expansion of Executive Authority

Throughout his first presidency, Trump frequently relied on executive orders to bypass congressional gridlock, demonstrating a preference for unilateral decision-making. His administration tested the limits of executive authority, often clashing with both Congress and the judiciary over issues ranging from immigration policy to federal spending.

With a second term, Trump is expected to continue leveraging executive orders to push through key policy objectives. This approach weakens the traditional legislative process, reducing the role of congressional debate and compromise in shaping national policy. While executive action has long been a tool for U.S. presidents, its overuse risks marginalising the legislative branch’s role, leading to governance increasingly dictated by the executive’s preferences rather than democratic consensus.

The removal of restrictions on executive power also raises concerns about the potential for politically motivated decision-making. Trump’s recent rollbacks of ethics rules, which previously restricted the ability of government officials to engage in lobbying and financial conflicts of interest, suggest a governance model that prioritises political loyalty over institutional integrity. As government agencies become more aligned with partisan interests, the independence of institutions designed to provide oversight and accountability may be further eroded.

Judicial Challenges and the Role of the Courts

The judiciary has historically served as a counterbalance to executive overreach. During Trump’s first term, courts frequently intervened to block or modify his policies, particularly those related to immigration and regulatory rollbacks. However, with a judiciary that conservative appointments have significantly reshaped, Trump’s second term could see a more favourable legal landscape for his administration’s policies.

The Supreme Court, now with a firm conservative majority, will likely play a decisive role in determining the extent of executive power. Legal challenges to federal agency actions, voting rights regulations, and legislative authority will become key battlegrounds in defining the limits of presidential control. If judicial rulings increasingly align with the executive branch, the capacity for legal checks on government overreach could be diminished, further centralising power within the presidency.

Trump’s history of criticising judicial decisions that do not align with his political agenda also raises concerns about the perception of judicial independence. Public distrust in the courts is a growing issue. If judicial rulings are viewed as extensions of political partisanship rather than neutral interpretations of the law, the legal system’s legitimacy may be scrutinised.

Electoral Integrity and the Legitimacy of Democratic Processes

One of the most contentious aspects of Trump’s leadership is his electoral integrity approach. Despite a lack of substantive evidence, his continued claims of election fraud have eroded public confidence in democratic processes. The January 6 Capitol riot directly resulted from these claims, reflecting the potential for misinformation to mobilise civil unrest.

As Trump begins his second term, questions surrounding voting rights, election security, and the peaceful transition of power will take on renewed significance. Proposed restrictions on mail-in voting, voter ID laws, and changes to election oversight mechanisms are likely to generate legal battles and deepen political divisions. The increasing polarization of how elections are conducted may result in a system where the legitimacy of electoral outcomes is persistently questioned, undermining public trust in the foundational principles of democratic governance.

The role of state governments in election administration will be another focal point. With Republican-controlled states enacting laws that reshape voting access and election certification procedures, federal and state governments may find themselves in direct conflict over how electoral processes should be conducted. If election disputes become increasingly contested in the courts rather than resolved through bipartisan consensus, the democratic system may face prolonged instability.

The Long-Term Consequences of Institutional Erosion

The weakening of democratic norms is not an immediate crisis but a gradual shift that accumulates over time. When institutions designed to serve as checks on power become politically compromised, their ability to function independently is diminished. The consequences of this shift extend beyond the current administration, influencing the expectations and behaviours of future leaders.

Once executive overreach becomes normalised, reversing it becomes increasingly difficult. If future administrations follow Trump’s precedent of circumventing legislative processes, undermining judicial independence, and challenging electoral outcomes, democratic governance in the United States may transition towards a model where executive power faces fewer constraints.

Internationally, the perception of U.S. democracy as a stable and reliable system has already been impacted. Authoritarian regimes have used U.S. political instability to justify their crackdowns on democratic movements, citing the fragility of democratic governance as evidence of its inefficacy. If American democracy continues to erode, global confidence in democratic institutions may weaken, emboldening political leaders who seek to consolidate power at the expense of democratic accountability.

The Future of U.S. Democratic Stability

The coming years will test the resilience of American democratic institutions. Trump’s second term presents significant challenges to the balance of power, the integrity of the judicial system, and public confidence in electoral processes. The trajectory of these developments will determine whether the erosion of democratic norms becomes an enduring shift or whether institutional safeguards prove strong enough to withstand the pressures of political polarisation.

For those concerned with the stability of democratic governance, vigilance and institutional accountability will be critical. The ability of democratic systems to self-correct relies on engaged civic participation, an independent judiciary, and a commitment to the foundational principles of democratic rule. Whether these elements can withstand the pressures of an increasingly centralised executive authority remains one of the most pressing questions facing the United States and its role in global democratic leadership.

The Rising Threat of Civil Unrest

The return of Donald Trump to the presidency is set to exacerbate the deep divisions within American society, increasing the likelihood of civil unrest. The growing disconnect between political factions, heightened distrust in democratic institutions, and mainstreaming of extremist rhetoric has created conditions in which domestic instability is not only possible but increasingly probable. His leadership style, which thrives on polarisation and confrontation, has already demonstrated its capacity to mobilise supporters and provoke widespread protests. As his second term unfolds, the intersection of political extremism, social movements, and government responses will determine whether civil unrest remains a sporadic occurrence or escalates into a sustained crisis.

In modern democracies, social stability depends on public confidence in institutions, the rule of law, and the willingness of political leaders to engage in consensus-building. When these elements erode, societies become vulnerable to cycles of unrest as marginalised groups and politically motivated factions turn to protest, direct action, or, in extreme cases, violence. The United States, already dealing with increasing partisanship and declining institutional trust, is now at a crossroads. If governance continues to be framed as a struggle between irreconcilable political ideologies, the risk of widespread civil disorder will grow.

Deepening Political Polarisation and the Normalisation of Extremism

One of the defining features of Trump’s political strategy has been his ability to galvanise his base through rhetoric that often dismisses political opponents as illegitimate. Despite a lack of evidence, his continued claims of electoral fraud have undermined trust in the democratic process and emboldened movements that refuse to recognise the legitimacy of opposition parties. This rhetoric fuels a cycle of radicalisation, where political engagement is increasingly defined by a sense of existential struggle rather than democratic competition.

The January 6 Capitol riot illustrated how misinformation and distrust can translate into direct action. The individuals involved in the attack were driven by a belief that the electoral system had been compromised, reinforcing the idea that extra-legal measures were justified. Since that event, multiple right-wing groups have expanded their activities, with some advocating for further direct action against perceived political adversaries. Meanwhile, left-leaning activist groups, particularly those focused on racial and social justice, have also mobilised in response to government policies they see as regressive or authoritarian. The presence of two increasingly radicalised factions, each viewing the other as an existential threat, creates fertile ground for recurring social conflict.

The mainstreaming of conspiracy theories and politically motivated misinformation further exacerbates these divisions. Social media has significantly shaped political discourse, with algorithm-driven content reinforcing ideological echo chambers. As a result, misinformation spreads rapidly, solidifying entrenched beliefs and reducing the likelihood of compromise. When a large portion of the population fundamentally distrusts official narratives, the potential for civil unrest increases dramatically.

Protests, Government Response, and the Risk of Escalation

Protests have long been a feature of democratic societies, serving as a mechanism for expressing dissent and influencing public policy. However, in a profoundly polarised environment, the line between peaceful protest and violent confrontation becomes increasingly thin. The past decade has seen mass demonstrations in response to racial justice, immigration policies, reproductive rights, and gun legislation. Trump’s second term is expected to see further mobilisation, both in support of and in opposition to his policies.

Government response to civil unrest will play a decisive role in determining whether tensions escalate or are de-escalated. During Trump’s first term, federal interventions in protests, such as the deployment of unmarked federal officers in Portland, raised concerns over the militarization of domestic law enforcement. If Trump takes an aggressive stance against protesters, particularly those aligned with left-leaning movements, it could trigger further resistance, leading to prolonged cycles of unrest.

The risk of a heavy-handed government response is compounded by Trump’s previous encouragement of paramilitary-style groups. His failure to condemn, and in some cases his implicit endorsement of, far-right militias has emboldened these groups to act as unofficial enforcers of his political agenda. If state-sanctioned law enforcement and self-organised paramilitary groups operate with overlapping objectives, the likelihood of violent clashes will increase.

Moreover, state and local governments may respond differently to federal mandates, creating a patchwork of enforcement policies that deepen national divisions. In Democrat-led states and cities, local authorities may resist federal crackdowns on protests, leading to further conflicts between different levels of government. In Republican-led areas, there may be increased crackdowns on dissenting voices, exacerbating grievances among those targeted by state policies.

Economic Strain and Civil Discontent

Beyond political polarisation, economic instability also plays a crucial role in shaping civil unrest. The financial consequences of Trump’s policies, particularly trade wars, deregulation, and cuts to federal assistance programs, may disproportionately impact lower-income communities. Historically, economic hardship has catalysed social movements, as financial insecurity drives people to protest against perceived injustices.

Economic inequality will likely widen if inflation rises due to trade restrictions or government debt increases from tax cuts and military spending. Disparities in wealth distribution and a lack of access to affordable healthcare and housing will fuel discontent among economically marginalised groups. The perception that government policies prioritise corporate interests over working-class communities may become a rallying point for movements advocating for systemic change.

Furthermore, the weaponisation of economic policy—such as cutting federal funding to states or cities that oppose federal mandates—may deepen regional tensions. If economically vulnerable regions experience disproportionate financial hardship due to federal policy, their populations may become increasingly receptive to anti-government sentiment, increasing the risk of large-scale civil disobedience.

The Broader Impact of Sustained Unrest

If civil unrest becomes a recurring feature of Trump’s second term, it will have long-term consequences for American governance, economic stability, and international perception.

  • Public confidence in democratic institutions may decline, making future elections more contested and divisive.
  • Businesses may struggle with instability, as protests, riots, and government crackdowns create an unpredictable environment for investment.
  • Foreign governments may reassess their diplomatic and economic engagements with the United States, particularly if civil unrest leads to political paralysis.

Internationally, the image of the United States as a stable democracy may continue to erode. Rival nations could exploit domestic instability to advance their geopolitical agendas, weakening U.S. influence in global affairs. Countries that traditionally align with American leadership may seek alternative partnerships, diminishing the United States’ ability to shape international policies.

Navigating an Era of Political and Social Volatility

Trump’s second term presents a heightened risk of civil unrest driven by deep political divisions, economic insecurity, and institutional distrust. Whether this unrest remains sporadic or escalates into a prolonged period of instability will depend on how government institutions, law enforcement, and political leaders respond to rising tensions.

For policymakers, businesses, and global observers, the evolving landscape of U.S. civil stability demands careful attention. The next four years will likely test the resilience of American democracy and social cohesion. If divisions deepen, the United States may enter a sustained unrest, reshaping its domestic political landscape and role as a global leader. The ability of U.S. institutions to maintain order, restore public trust, and address economic grievances will determine how much the country can prevent a broader social crisis.

Eric Allgood is the Managing Director of SBAAS and brings over two decades of experience in corporate guidance, with a focus on governance and risk, crisis management, industrial relations, and sustainability.

He founded SBAAS in 2019 to extend his corporate strategies to small businesses, quickly becoming a vital support. His background in IR, governance and risk management, combined with his crisis management skills, has enabled businesses to navigate challenges effectively.

Eric’s commitment to sustainability shapes his approach to fostering inclusive and ethical practices within organisations. His strategic acumen and dedication to sustainable growth have positioned SBAAS as a leader in supporting small businesses through integrity and resilience.

Qualifications:

  • Master of Business Law
  • MBA (USA)
  • Graduate Certificate of Business Administration
  • Graduate Certificate of Training and Development
  • Diploma of Psychology (University of Warwickshire)
  • Bachelor of Applied Management

Memberships:

  • Small Business Association of Australia –
    International Think Tank Member and Sponsor
  • Australian Institute of Company Directors – MAICD
  • Institute of Community Directors Australia – ICDA
  • Australian Human Resource Institute – CAHRI
Skip to content