TEHRAN - In recent years, and especially with the beginning of Donald Trump’s second presidential term, the political and social landscape of the United States has entered a new phase of deepening tension and polarization. This phase is characterized not only by opposition from traditional Democratic critics, but also by growing concern among some Republicans, conservative analysts, mainstream think tanks, and even former allies of Trump regarding the direction of his governance.

A wide range of media reports, official statements, academic analyses, and public opinion data suggests that these criticisms cluster around four main themes: foreign policy—particularly the war and tensions with Iran—democratic institutions and concentration of power, press freedom and the information environment, and the economic consequences of government decisions.

In the realm of foreign policy, the war and escalating tensions with Iran have become one of the central focal points of criticism. Many senators and members of Congress, both Democratic and Republican, have warned about the lack of a clear, long-term strategy in these conflicts. Reports from congressional hearings repeatedly emphasize that the Trump administration has entered or escalated military engagements without presenting a defined endgame, raising serious concerns about the risk of a prolonged, draining war. Senators such as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have described these policies as not only morally and humanly problematic but also as a direct threat to domestic economic stability in the United States. They argue that rising military spending and increasing energy prices place significant pressure on the middle and working classes. On the Republican side, figures such as Josh Hawley have also raised concerns about the lack of transparency in war objectives, warning that continued ambiguity could reduce political support for the administration in Congress.

Cory Booker, Senator from New Jersey, added: “Even Trump knows Congress can hold him accountable. It is time for Republicans in the House and Senate to wake up and restrain him before this turns into another forever war.”

Alongside political figures, military and international relations analysts have also highlighted that the United States is trapped in a complex situation with no clear horizon. Some argue that the government is neither in a position to achieve a decisive military victory nor capable of presenting a dignified exit strategy. This condition has been described by several think tanks and international media outlets as a “strategic deadlock.” European analysts have also warned that such conflicts could trigger severe shocks in global energy markets and lead to sustained price increases worldwide.

Trump has recently made numerous controversial statements regarding the war with Iran and ceasefire prospects. He had promised a quick end to the conflict, yet the war has kept energy costs high, fueling widespread reactions across American society. Several Republican senators have warned that unless the president clearly outlines his plan, they may increasingly oppose him, including withholding support for military action against Iran after 60 days of conflict.

Senator Josh Hawley said: “I hope we are moving toward a strategy for exiting this war so we can end it in a way that protects our security interests and reduces gas prices. Time is running out for this war.”

Trump also sparked controversy after posting an AI-generated image depicting himself in a Christ-like figure. This followed his earlier comments criticizing Pope Leo XIV, whom he described as weak on crime and “terrible” in foreign policy.

Christian activist Sean Feucht called the image “completely unacceptable” and demanded its removal. Riley Gaines warned that “God should not be mocked.” Archbishop Paul Coakley and Bishop Robert Barron also criticized Trump, calling his remarks “inappropriate and disrespectful,” and urged him to apologize. The controversy even extended into Trump’s evangelical support base, where some conservative Christians expressed discomfort at imagery portraying him as a messianic figure. David Brody, a pro-Trump commentator, wrote: “Take this down, Mr. President. You are not God. None of us are. This goes too far.”

Beyond these issues, criticism of Trump also extends to democracy and governance structures. Multiple reports from major international think tanks such as V-Dem, Freedom House, and Bright Line Watch indicate a declining trend in democratic indicators in the United States in recent years. These reports point to increased concentration of power in the executive branch, reduced congressional oversight, growing pressure on independent institutions, and weakening accountability mechanisms. Some of these organizations have even warned that the United States is approaching levels of democratic fragility seen in less stable political systems. While the Trump administration rejects these reports as biased and political, the convergence of multiple independent studies has made these concerns widely discussed in academic and media circles.

Another major area of criticism concerns press freedom during Trump’s current presidency. Reporters Without Borders and similar organizations have reported increased pressure on critical media outlets and reduced journalistic access to government information. Measures such as limiting press attendance at official briefings, revising White House media access rules, and pursuing legal actions against certain outlets have been cited as evidence of an effort to control the information environment. Critics interpret these developments as attempts to restrict media independence and shape public narratives.

Public opinion surveys also indicate declining trust in American media. While part of this trend is attributed to political polarization, analysts argue that direct tensions between the government and the press have further intensified the crisis of trust. In such an environment, media organizations are increasingly seen not only as information providers but also as political actors, which further deepens societal divisions.
Within the Republican Party itself, internal divisions are becoming more visible. Unlike Trump’s first term, when Republican support was largely unified, his second term has seen growing dissent. Senators such as Rand Paul and Mitt Romney have criticized aspects of foreign policy and executive power expansion. Even conservative media figures who previously supported Trump have raised concerns about the consequences of war and the role of foreign allies, particularly Israel. This shift reflects increasing complexity within the right-wing political landscape.

Think tanks and research institutions such as the Brookings Institution, Chatham House, the Quincy Institute, and the Center for American Progress have also produced extensive critiques of the administration’s policies. These analyses focus on threats to institutional independence, economic consequences of military and trade policies, and the erosion of international trust in the United States. Collectively, they present a picture of a political system in which institutional balance is under strain.

On the economic front, concerns are centered on rising living costs, inflation driven by geopolitical instability, and volatility in energy markets. Analysts warn that continued conflict in the Middle East could lead to sustained increases in oil and gas prices, directly affecting consumer goods and services in the United States. Some lawmakers accuse the administration of prioritizing foreign policy over domestic issues such as housing, healthcare, and employment.

Public opinion data reveals a deeply divided society. While a segment of the population continues to support Trump’s assertive foreign policy, a significant portion expresses concern over escalating international tensions, economic instability, and declining trust in democratic institutions. This divide has become a defining feature of contemporary American politics.

Overall, domestic criticism of Donald Trump’s second presidency reflects a broader crisis of trust, institutional tension, and political polarization. These criticisms span across political parties, media institutions, think tanks, and segments of public opinion. From Congress to academia, from mainstream media to conservative commentators, a shared concern emerges: uncertainty about the future trajectory of American governance and its global role. The situation suggests that the Trump administration is operating in one of the most politically complex periods in modern US history, one in which legitimacy, stability, and institutional balance are simultaneously under pressure, and where the future increasingly depends on short-term decisions and rapidly shifting political dynamics.