More dangerous than disconcerting
BarcelonaThey say Nabokov used to tell his students the following: "Do not inflate ignorance with eloquence." As is evident, Trump would not have attended class. Never before had a US president caused so much bewilderment in the markets, among allies, enemies, and his own electorate. His contradictory statements cause erratic movements in the stock markets and are wearing down the patience of traditional allies, whom he insults in a frivolous and puerile manner. Added to the insults directed at allies who do not allow themselves to be dragged into a war for which no one consulted them, are the threats of a neighborhood thug, such as sending Persian civilization back to the Stone Age, exactly where the president of the great superpower seems to mentally come from. He has also not shied away from threatening to leave NATO, even though the decision theoretically depends on the US Congress.
Trump seems to be seeking a way out of the war compatible with his immense arrogance and his irascible character, and European chanceries and analysts pray that he finds it before it is too late and he commits irreversible errors such as deploying troops to Iran.
Meanwhile, the situation becomes more complex to unravel each day, especially if Iran captures American soldiers.
The recent dismissals within the US government – both at the head of the Justice Department and in the military command structure – cannot be read as simple administrative adjustments. They are part of a deeper movement that points to a redefinition of the relationship between the executive power and the institutions that, in theory, should limit it. The changes are not so much a response to management errors as to insufficient alignment with the leader's will. The dismissal of the Attorney General thus falls within a logic of internal discipline, where loyalty becomes the determining criterion. The same applies to military commands: what is sought is not only operational effectiveness but ideological consonance and willingness to execute a specific political agenda. In this context, words like purge or reprisal are not rhetorical exaggerations, but attempts to describe a qualitative change in the way Trump exercises power.
The institutional consequences are the progressive erosion of norms that for decades have structured the functioning not only of diplomacy but of the state. The Department of Justice, traditionally protected by a certain autonomy, runs the risk of becoming an extension of the executive. It is not just about who holds the office, but about the transformation of the function itself: from an impartial guarantor of legality to a potential instrument in political disputes. Similarly, the army, which has operated under a strict culture of technical neutrality, is subjected to pressures that can alter this balance. The danger here is the gradual, almost imperceptible, degradation of the norms that underpin institutional trust.
Finally, these are decisions to concentrate power. The dismissals are not isolated episodes but coherent steps in a process of institutional capture. Control of the judicial system and the coercive apparatus of the state – justice and armed forces – constitutes a central element in any project of power centralization. What is at stake is not only the balance between branches of government, but the very nature of the political system: whether it continues to be based on effective checks and balances or whether it evolves towards a personalistic and in this case almost capricious structure.
The dismissals are not neutral. They indicate a shift in the criteria governing institutions: from competence and independence to loyalty and alignment. This change, if consolidated, not only alters the internal functioning of the state, but also the perception of its legitimacy.
The future of US democracy
Ultimately, the question is not whether a government has the right to appoint or dismiss officials, but to what extent these decisions transform the rules of the game. It is here that these episodes acquire a dimension that goes beyond immediate current events and are part of a broader debate about the democratic future of the USA.
Are we facing the most absolute absurdity, or structured thinking?
Basically, reactionary thinking based on the erosion of democracy. The most serious thing is that Trump is the most flashy element, but not the only one, and we also see this in the European Union.
Hungary, Poland, and Italy have seen right-wing national populists come to power fueled by socioeconomic needs and political challenges. Social unrest in Poland and Hungary against elites opposed to a suffering people puts liberal democracy at risk. Revaluation of the country's history, social mobilization, anti-immigration rhetoric that clashes with economic reality. A methodical attack on the rule of law is occurring. First the judiciary, the opposition, journalists, and universities are intimidated, and scientific knowledge is discredited. The evolution will depend on the capacity for democratic resistance and the degree of destabilizing interference from Russia.