TEHRAN — One year after Donald Trump returned to the White House, the national mood is uneasy. Polls show that half of Americans believe the economy has worsened under Trump’s leadership, and his approval rating remains stubbornly low.

 His sweeping use of executive authority has unsettled long-standing norms, from freezing congressionally approved funds to dismantling major federal agencies through the new Department of Government Efficiency. These moves have left many Americans feeling that the federal government is being reshaped at breakneck speed, with little regard for institutional stability.

Yet these domestic troubles, serious as they are, form only the backdrop. The most explosive and emotionally charged conflict of Trump’s first year has unfolded in Minnesota.

Minnesota and the ICE flashpoint

Minnesota has become the center of a national crisis over immigration enforcement. Trump’s decision to dramatically expand ICE operations in the state triggered widespread alarm, especially in Minneapolis, where the presence of federal agents grew rapidly. Tensions reached a breaking point after the fatal shooting of Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother of three. Her death ignited mass protests, drawing thousands into the streets and turning the state into a symbol of resistance against federal overreach.

The administration’s response only deepened the crisis. Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy the military in Minnesota, a step not taken in more than three decades. Local officials condemned the move as an abuse of power, while civil rights groups warned that the federal government was using immigration enforcement as a political weapon. The conflict in Minnesota now stands as one of the clearest examples of how Trump’s second term has intensified the use of federal force in domestic affairs.

Confrontational foreign policy

If the domestic landscape is tense, the international arena is even more volatile. Trump’s foreign policy during his first year back in office has been marked by unilateral decisions, sudden escalations, and a willingness to bypass traditional diplomatic channels.

Military actions have been carried out in Venezuela, Iran, Yemen, Syria, and Nigeria, often without notifying Congress. The raid in Venezuela that led to the abduction of Nicolás Maduro was conducted without briefing the congressional “Gang of Eight,” breaking with long standing practice. Airstrikes on suspected drug boats in the Caribbean have drawn accusations of illegality. Critics argue that these actions reflect a pattern of using military force without transparency, oversight, or clear strategic goals.

Trade policy has been equally disruptive. Trump’s introduction of a baseline 10 percent tariff on all imports represents a dramatic departure from decades of targeted, industry-specific tariffs. The constant cycle of imposing, pausing, reversing, and reinstating these tariffs has created uncertainty for global markets and strained relations with key partners.

Perhaps the most unusual diplomatic conflict involves Greenland. Trump’s insistence that the territory should become part of the United States, combined with threats of steeper tariffs on European allies who refuse to support the idea, has caused deep frustration in the European Union. What began as an eccentric proposal has evolved into a serious diplomatic rift, symbolizing the broader deterioration of U.S.–EU relations.

Presidential power

Across both domestic and foreign policy, Trump’s actions share a common thread: the expansion of presidential authority. He issued a record number of executive orders during his first 100 days, including measures that courts and critics have called unconstitutional. His aggressive use of the pardon power — including pardons for nearly all defendants involved in the January 6 Capitol riot and numerous political allies — has raised concerns about the politicization of justice.

Trump has also publicly pressured the Department of Justice to investigate his opponents, deployed the National Guard to cities without local approval, and hinted repeatedly at the possibility of a third term. His statement that the only restraint on his power is “my own morality. My own mind” has alarmed constitutional scholars who see these remarks as evidence of a presidency increasingly unbound by traditional checks.

Congress, controlled by his party, has offered little resistance. Attempts to limit his war-making powers have failed, and oversight hearings have been scarce. The Supreme Court has upheld several of his actions, further weakening institutional barriers.
Trump’s supporters argue that he is acting boldly to protect national interests, but critics warn that the country is drifting toward deeper conflict at home and greater isolation abroad.

As the second year begins, the United States stands at a crossroads, uncertain whether the coming months will bring restraint or further escalation. What is clear is that the past year has reshaped both the presidency and America’s role in the world — and the consequences are only beginning to unfold.