Donald Trump has returned to the White Office and took up the role of 47th president of the United States of America at an inauguration ceremony in Washington on Monday 20 January. His inaugural speech saw him commit to putting "America First".
He went into the election campaign a convicted felon due to hush money fraud charges, but judge Justice Merchan unconditionally discharged him of this record.
In the months between his election win in November 2024 to now, the incoming president has already been incredibly active.
He has already announced nominations for his incoming administration: tech boss Elon Musk will be his efficiency tsar, conspiracy theorist Kash Patel will lead the FBI, former wrestling entertatinment CEO Linda McMahon is due to take up the role of education secretary.
Foreign policy has been another big concern for Trump, who stated his wish to buy the country of Greenland and the Panama Canal as well as absorb the country of Canada in the USA.
Experts from across disciplines at City St George's, University of London respond.
"For populists, losing an election is inconceivable," says Dr Ayala Panievsky
Dr Ayala Panievsky, Presidential Fellow in the Journalism Department, draws parallels between Trump and populist leaders who returned to power after losing it. She said:
Losing elections is painful. For populists, it’s also inconceivable: if they are the only true representatives of “the real people”, how could they possibly lose elections? The system surely must be rigged.
January 6th was the paradigmatic example of the risk entangled in a populist leader becoming a sore loser. But when Trump returns to the White House in 2025, it might be useful to remember that he is not the first right-wing populist for whom losing was merely the outset of a political tour de force.
Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, lost his seat in 2002, only to regain it in 2010. Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu lost the Prime Ministry in 1999, only to regain it ten years later. Based on the historical experience of these two, populists’ second terms in office tend to be further oppressive, revengeful, and anti-democratic. Much of the actions they took as PMs for the second, third or fourth time, were inconceivable during their first term.
The taste of defeat is still vibrant, the paranoid fear of coups tangible. Revenge characterises these post-defeat terms, alongside the ruthless determination to do whatever it takes to avoid defeat again. If Trump follows the lead of friends like Orban and Netanyahu, this is likely to be the term in which his administration takes over the media – and with it, the American people’s right to know.
"Trump's proposed free-market policies would make it harder for European governments to intervene and regulate," says Dr Inga Rademacher
Dr Inga Rademacher, Lecturer in International Political Economy, warns against the potential of Trump implementing Project 2025:
Trump has proposed a radical free-market policy programme which, if implemented, bolsters the power of US finance markets and undermine state intervention and financial market regulation.
Project 2025 (which he has not officially endorsed, but which has been written by close allies) advocates for a removal of powers from the Federal Reserve and to implement a "free banking system" or, alternatively, restore the gold standard to radically remove state intervention and enable the free competition within financial markets.
If Project 2025 were to go ahead, this would mean a further push for financial market liberalisation which would make attempts to progressively regulate financial markets by European governments harder to pursue.
We need to regulate financial markets, or at least maintain the regulations that are in place to prevent future financial crises which would further destabilise our democracies, or what is left of them.
Global world order: we will see a reordering with America First, according to Professor Inderjeet Parmar
Professor Inderjeet Parmar, expert in international politics and global world order, spoke with BBC News about Trump's second presidency. He said:
Trump is making history in the USA. Just a few weeks ago he was declared by the Democratic Party a fascist, we know he's been convicted in court and we know he tried to overthrow the election in 2020, yet he is being welcomed in with a red carpet treatment by the Democrats.
World leaders need to be prepared that he's weaponising every aspect of American power - including rhetorical threats - in order to get what he wants to squeeze out other parts of the world. This is not only so-called adversaries, like China, but also from countries normally considered allies of the State.
The international system within which the US presided is now going to be effectively abandoned. The rule of law and international organisations will be abandoned unless they serve the US directly. In effect the very rich and powerful are going to get even more powerful.
Trump's statements on the Panama Canal, Greenland and Canada are "probably bluster" but also an attention-grabbing "negotiation tactic", argues Professor Michael Ben-Gad
Professor Michael Ben-Gad, expert in economics, reflects on Trump's economic priorities. Discussing immigration and tax, he said:
On the domestic front, the Trump administration has two immediate priorities, immigration and making permanent the tax cuts passed in 2017 and set to expire in 2027.
Immigration is the easier issue as some Democrats have now indicated that they are open to compromise on the policy of curtailing illegal immigration and even deportation of convicted criminals.
The tax cuts are more complicated and require more negotiations among Republicans, particularly between the minority that represent districts in otherwise ‘blue’ states versus those from largely republican states. In the former, local taxes particularly property taxes are higher and houses are more expensive. The degree to which local taxes and mortgage interest can be deducted from Federal taxes will be a matter of contention on the Republican side and they will need every vote.
The tax cuts themselves will be costly, some estimates $4 trillion over a decade on top of the $28 trillion net debt that has already accumulated. This is a net debt to GDP ratio of 96% and was already projected to grow to 166% by the CBO by 2054. I cannot emphasise too much how unprecedented this is in peace time. Is that sustainable? For an ordinary country debts, at that level would lead almost surely to a financial crisis. We may eventually learn whether the US is as exceptional as they hope.
In relation to US foreign policy, he added:
In terms of foreign policy, there is a split between those who advocate a reverse Kissinger policy that prioritises rapprochement with Russia to degrade its alliance with China, which is the US' primary threat, and those who advocate a hawkish approach to both.
It is from the former group that your hear all sorts of musings about retaking the Panama Canal, buying Greenland and even annexing Canada. A lot of this is probably bluster, a way of attracting attention and making noise as well as a negotiating tactic.
Demanding that Nato members raise their defense spending to 5% GDP is another example of this tactic. Nonetheless, if the ultimate number is negotiable the direction of travel is not; US allies will be expected to shoulder a greater share of their defense burden rather than free riding on the US.
Remember the term ‘free riders’ was not introduced by Trump but rather Obama. This is a long-standing complaint. If the UK has to raise its defence spending to a mere 3% GDP, that would mean Rachel Reeves will need to find nearly £20 billion extra at the same time she is already contemplating further cuts to public services.
In the Middle East, Trump is sending very mixed signals. Hard-right ministers in Israel’s government have lots of unrealistic expectations as to Trump’s willingness to accommodate their plans for Gaza or the West Bank (for which there is no consensus in Israel). Instead, they may find that Trump prioritises relations with Saudi Arabia over Israel.
"Trump's words should be taken seriously, but not literally," says Dr Andrew Payne
Dr Andrew Payne, expert in US foreign policy, said:
The inauguration of a new president is a symbolic changing of the guard. But this year, more than ever, that transition in power came early. Trump has been an extraordinarily active president-elect, meeting foreign leaders and issuing policy pronouncements at a rate we have never seen before.
Many of these activities – from threatening double-digit tariffs against Mexico and Canada to pondering territorial acquisitions in Greenland and the Panama Canal – signal a profound shift in the character of U.S. foreign policy. What remains to be seen is whether Trump acts on these initiatives when he finally has the levers of power at his disposal.
During his first administration, many thought Trump’s words should be taken seriously, but not literally. Yet in a second administration likely to be staffed by loyalists, with few “adults in the room,” it seems at least plausible that Trump’s provocative positions should, in fact, be taken as clear statements of intent.
Trump has promised to do many things on his first day in office. But we shouldn’t expect ending the war in Ukraine to be one of the items he will be able to check off his list anytime soon. Having successfully created an image of himself as a peacemaker during the presidential campaign, his ability to broker any kind of cessation in fighting between Ukraine and Russia will be an early test of his ability to deliver.
