The Business of Governance: How a 2nd Trump Administration could accelerate the decline of American Influence in the world?

In the aftermath of the recent U.S. presidential election, Americans and the world find themselves at a potential turning point. The second Trump administration represents a distinctive approach to governance, one that appears less about serving a diverse populace and more akin to managing a corporate entity. As a result, the government may prioritize profit, efficiency, and control in ways that benefit the wealthy elite while distancing itself from the common people. This administration could embody a plutocratic model that hastens the end of the American “giant empire” and the order of Pax Americana.

Reflecting on this, it’s worth remembering the words of Thomas Jefferson: “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.” Such an idea seems at odds with governance that prioritizes the powerful over the well-being of the general populace.

---

As George Washington once cautioned, “The administration of the government... ought to be with a view to the general good, and not to the aggrandizement of individuals or families.” At its core, the Trump administration’s approach resembles a business enterprise. Hence, Washington’s ideal seems at risk.

Taking the experience from the first Trump government, policies and decisions are crafted in a manner reminiscent of corporate strategies focused on maximizing return on investment and consolidating power. The implications of this approach are profound: while efficient for the top tiers of society, it risks sidelining the welfare of ordinary citizens.

For many, this business-style governance may seem appealing, promising a streamlined government that cuts red tape and curbs spending. However, the focus on elite interests could lead to policies that prioritize wealthy corporations and individuals over the needs of the middle and lower classes. Social services, healthcare, and educational support may face cuts or reforms designed to reduce governmental “expenses.” In this way, the government becomes a selective service provider, delivering gains only to those who are already well-positioned to profit.

---

James Madison warned of this in Federalist No. 57: “The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society.” The concentration of wealth and influence among a few can derail this goal, leaving many citizens feeling excluded from the promise of equal representation.

Seems like the perfect ground for the Rise of Plutocracy looking on the Trump’s promises on shifting the policy-making and remodeling of public administration into a business corporation by including the richest people as part of the government, where consequently the affluent elite will enjoy disproportionate influence over policy. Wealthy donors, corporate executives, and high-net-worth individuals may see a government increasingly aligned with their interests, while most Americans find themselves distanced from the decisions that shape their daily lives.

Such a shift threatens to deepen further the inequality and concentrate the wealth into a fewer hands, creating a stark contrast between the haves and the have-nots. When policy becomes a commodity sold to the highest bidder, ordinary citizens face an uphill battle for fair representation. This situation may lead to weakened democratic principles and could result in widespread disenfranchisement. With each policy tailored to elite benefit, the sense of unity and shared purpose among Americans will start to erode, potentially destabilizing the country from within.

---

The government’s apparent preference for wealth-driven policies risks alienating the common people even further. For millions, these decisions may signal that the administration is less concerned with democratic values than with a selective approach to governance that disregards their voices. Over time, this alienation could lead to increased civil unrest, as people feel marginalized and unheard, and foreign influence will find a more suitable ground to apply the “divide & conquer” maxim.

As Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense, “A government of our own is our natural right; and when a man seriously reflects on the precariousness of human affairs, he will become convinced that it is infinitely wiser and safer to form a constitution of our own in a cool deliberate manner.” When citizens feel that government no longer reflects them, they may seek drastic change, potentially destabilizing the entire system.

So, alienation also threatens democratic citizenry participation. When people believe their votes and opinions no longer count, they may disengage entirely, leading to a political landscape where apathy and distrust outweigh civic responsibility. This weakening of the democratic fabric is both an immediate challenge and a long-term danger. A government that distances itself from its people risks losing not only its domestic legitimacy but also its standing as a model for other nations.

---

The impact of these domestic policies extends beyond U.S. borders. As the American government grows increasingly insular and elitist, it may struggle to maintain the global leadership role it once commanded. Pax Americana—the concept of American-led global stability—relies on the U.S. being seen as a champion of democracy, equality, and opportunity. A plutocratic America, preoccupied with the interests of a select few, undermines these values and its own credibility on the world stage. Unless America will become a focal and gravitational point for all the wealthy corporate and rich individuals around the world to join this new plutocratic government.

However, having in horizon the current world of affairs, when America no longer stands as a beacon for democracy, it risks ceding influence to emerging powers. A divided nation, burdened by social unrest and economic inequality, is unlikely to rally allies or promote stability abroad. Instead, this decline could create a vacuum in global leadership, allowing other nations to step into roles that once defined U.S. diplomacy and influence. Benjamin Franklin’s words resonate here: “We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” As the country turns inward and becomes consumed by domestic disparities, its unity and influence are diminished, both at home and abroad.

This shift would signify the potential end of the American era, a geopolitical reordering that leaves the world leadership with an open vacancy to be seized by the new emerging superpower.

Reflecting in the end, the implications expected by the 2nd Trump administration are both far-reaching and cautionary not only for US, but for the entire world. While the American administration’s business-like governance style may benefit a select few, it could also foster instability, widen inequality, and lead to a weakened global position for the US. As the government aligns itself with the wealthy elite, it risks losing the trust and engagement of the average American, ultimately distancing itself from the very people it was designed to serve.

As Plato observed in The Republic, “Democracy passes into despotism.” He warned that unchecked freedom within a democracy, combined with the concentration of wealth and influence, can eventually lead to governance by the few, setting the stage for a system where power and privilege overshadow the voice of the people.

In the end, the 2nd Trump administration could indeed accelerate the end of America’s global leadership. If the nation’s core values continue to be sacrificed in favor of plutocratic ideals, this period may be remembered not as a chapter in America’s greatness but as the acceleration of its decline.