Patterns of Disruption: How Trump’s First-Term Actions Set the Stage for His Second
Introduction: The Blueprint for a Second Term
The integrity of a democracy is often measured not by its grand declarations but by the resilience of its institutions and the strength of its unwritten norms. When assessing the impact of Donald Trump on American democratic traditions, the narrative of his first presidency (2017-2021) is not one of a sudden collapse, but of a gradual, persistent erosion. This period served as a critical stress test for the guardrails of American governance. Now, with President Trump serving a second term since his inauguration on January 20, 2025, the patterns of behavior established during his first term provide a crucial blueprint for understanding the ongoing challenges to accountability, the rule of law, and institutional independence.
The Politicization of Justice
A cornerstone of liberal democracy is the principle of an independent judiciary and a Department of Justice (DOJ) that applies the law without fear or favor. During his first administration, President Trump repeatedly and publicly demanded loyalty from justice officials, framing the department as a tool to reward allies and punish political adversaries.1
This dynamic was starkly illustrated by the firing of FBI Director James Comey in May 2017. While the initial justification was his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, President Trump later acknowledged the “Russia thing” was a key factor, a clear reference to the ongoing investigation into his campaign’s ties with Russia.2 The subsequent recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions from that same investigation drew months of public condemnation from the president, culminating in Sessions’ forced resignation. These actions sent a chilling message: a failure to demonstrate personal loyalty could be career-ending, regardless of one’s adherence to legal and ethical protocols.
Furthermore, the presidential pardon power was wielded in ways that appeared to subvert the legal process. Pardons and commutations were granted to political allies and figures convicted in the Special Counsel’s investigation, including former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and political strategist Roger Stone. Legal scholars and former DOJ officials argued these actions undermined the rule of law by signaling that loyalty to the president could offer a reprieve from legal accountability, effectively obstructing justice.3 These first-term actions established a precedent for using the levers of justice for political ends, a concern that remains highly relevant in his second term.
Supporters argued these actions were necessary to correct a politicized justice system; empirical findings show increased public skepticism of DOJ independence during this period.
Weaponizing the Civil Service
The concept of a professional, non-partisan civil service is a critical buffer against the politicization of government functions. The Trump administration, however, viewed this independence with suspicion, often treating government experts as part of a “deep state” conspiracy. This led to a concerted effort to install loyalists in key positions and sideline those perceived as disloyal.
One of the most significant tactics was the dismissal of multiple Inspectors General (IGs), the independent watchdogs within federal agencies. In a span of six weeks in 2020, the administration removed the IGs for the Intelligence Community, the State Department, and the Department of Defense, among others.4 These IGs were often in the process of conducting investigations into the conduct of senior administration officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Their removal was widely seen as a direct assault on oversight and accountability.
This culminated in the “Schedule F” executive order, a late-term effort to reclassify tens of thousands of federal employees, stripping them of civil service protections and making them easier to fire for political reasons. Though briefly revoked by the Biden administration, the order was reinstated by President Trump on January 20, 2025, reviving a direct and ongoing effort to dismantle the non-partisan nature of the federal workforce.5 According to multiple media reports, including Government Executive, Trump signed an order on Jan 20 reinstating Schedule F. As of April 2025, Government Executive reports that implementation guidance has been issued to agencies, raising concerns about the potential for widespread politicization of the civil service.
Supporters argued this increased accountability; empirical findings show decreased morale and increased turnover among career civil servants.
Undermining Electoral Integrity
Perhaps the most direct challenge to a core democratic process was the sustained campaign to undermine faith in the American electoral system during his first term. Beginning long before the 2020 election, President Trump repeatedly made unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud. These claims escalated dramatically following his loss to Joe Biden.
The administration and its allies launched over 60 lawsuits challenging the election results in various states; nearly all were dismissed by courts at every level due to a lack of evidence.6 Despite these judicial rebukes, the president and his supporters continued to promote the “Big Lie” that the election was stolen. This narrative was directly contradicted by his own administration’s cybersecurity experts, who described the 2020 election as “the most secure in American history.”7
The pressure campaign extended to state and local election officials, most notably in a phone call where President Trump urged Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, to “find 11,780 votes”—the exact number needed to overturn the state’s result.8 This campaign culminated on January 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters, incited by the president’s rhetoric, stormed the U.S. Capitol to halt the certification of the election. The violent insurrection led to President Trump’s second impeachment by the House of Representatives, a historic first. These events, born from the rhetoric of his first term, have reshaped the landscape of American politics and trust in elections.
Supporters argued these actions were necessary to address legitimate concerns about election security; empirical findings show no evidence of widespread fraud that would have changed the outcome.
As of 2025, ongoing accountability measures include state RICO/fake-elector prosecutions and federal obstruction cases, demonstrating the legal system’s continued response to these challenges.
The International Perspective
The erosion of democratic norms within the United States during the 2017-2021 period did not go unnoticed by the international community. For decades, the U.S. had positioned itself as a global champion of democracy. The events of the first Trump presidency, particularly the challenges to the 2020 election and the January 6th Capitol riot, measurably eroded this reputation. Polling from the Pew Research Center showed a dramatic decline in international trust in the American president and a corresponding drop in the favorability of the United States itself among key allies.9
Authoritarian regimes in China and Russia seized upon the events as propaganda, using them to portray American democracy as chaotic and hypocritical. With the start of a second Trump term, these concerns have been renewed among allies, who continue to question the stability of American political institutions and the reliability of the U.S. as a global partner.
Supporters argued these were isolated incidents; empirical findings show lasting damage to international perceptions of U.S. democratic stability.
Conclusion: The Stress Test Continues
The first Trump administration subjected American democratic institutions to a stress test of historic proportions. The damage inflicted was not merely a collection of isolated incidents but a sustained pressure on the foundational norms of governance: the independence of justice, the neutrality of the civil service, and the integrity of elections. The precedents set in that first term are no longer historical warnings; they are the active playbook for a second. The reinstatement of Schedule F and the continued questioning of electoral legitimacy demonstrate that the erosion of democratic guardrails remains a central feature of this presidency.
The long-term consequences continue to unfold in the form of diminished public trust, heightened political polarization, and a weakened international standing. The stress test on American democracy is not over; it is an ongoing reality that requires constant vigilance and a renewed commitment to the nation’s core principles.
References
- “Trump’s Politicization of the Department of Justice,” Brookings Institution, October 23, 2020.
- “Transcript: Donald Trump Interview with NBC’s Lester Holt,” Roll Call, May 11, 2017.
- “Statement from the Press Secretary Regarding Executive Grant of Clemency for General Michael T. Flynn,” Trump White House Archives, November 25, 2020.
- “Trump’s war on inspectors general, explained,” Vox, May 28, 2020.
- “A radical plan for Trump’s second term,” Axios, July 22, 2022.
- “Trump’s election fraud claims were false, his own officials said. Here’s a look at them,” Reuters, February 5, 2021.
- “Joint Statement from Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council & the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees,” CISA, November 12, 2020.
- “Here’s the full transcript and audio of the call between Trump and Raffensperger,” The Washington Post, January 5, 2021.
- “America’s Image Abroad Rebounds with Transition from Trump to Biden,” Pew Research Center, June 10, 2021.