By Kenneth Tiven
“Hire a clown and you’ll get a circus.” That was my brother Rick’s assessment of what lay ahead for America and the world after Donald Trump’s election in 2024, which promised domestic revenge and a second-term manifesto steeped in contempt for constitutional restraints.
The approaching mid-terms suggest that many Americans have had enough. Dissatisfaction with inflation, an unnecessary and undeclared war in Iran, unfair immigration policies and a president seemingly more interested in spending weekends at his own golf clubs than in governing has left voters—including Republicans and independents—yearning for steadier, more responsible hands. They want their country back in sane, alert hands. They have grown weary of a president appearing to sleep on camera during meetings, allegations of pardons being traded for political or financial favours, and grandiose attempts to erect monuments to himself around Washington during the remaining years of his presidency.
The full extent of the Republican disaster, resembling the devastation left by a Category 5 hurricane, will take months to count and catalogue. Repairing the damage will be another matter altogether. The Trump administration has given every indication that it will not accept an electoral defeat without a legal fight. Courts, lawsuits and competing claims over election results could, therefore, dominate the news in the weeks ahead. Even the Republican-dominated US Supreme Court may be forced to confront the political and constitutional consequences as the country approaches January 3, 2027, when the 120th Congress is scheduled to be sworn in.
While writing this report, I received a maudlin email from the president, beginning with what appeared to be a characteristically Trumpian exercise in misdirection: “The Rose Garden is inspiring at night.” The sentiment was difficult to reconcile with the transformation of the historic garden, where Melania Trump removed much of the original rose planting associated with Jackie Kennedy’s 1962 redesign.
The president’s message continued: “Last evening, in what could be my final 4 weeks as President, I took some time to reflect on the last 10 years we have shared as I strolled alongside the rose bushes.”
He hoped that “my supporters will keep their trust in me one final time and help see the rest of my mission.”
The message offered a glimpse of a president still preoccupied with his own legacy, his supporters’ loyalty and the unfinished business of a political project that has increasingly revolved around himself.
With just over a week remaining before Election Day, the Democrats brought out their political closer last weekend. Former President Barack Obama drew large, enthusiastic crowds in Cleveland and Detroit on Saturday, going directly after Trump’s vulnerabilities: high fuel prices, the war in Iran, the apparent lack of seriousness among those running the country and Trump’s increasingly hostile attitude towards Canada.
Trump was campaigning in roughly the same region, but without the enthusiasm that greeted Obama, who was campaigning for Ohio gubernatorial candidate Amy Acton and Michigan Senate candidate Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed.
For generations, families and businesses across the 13 states bordering Canada have maintained close economic and personal ties across the border. From Alaska and Washington in the west to Maine in the east, communities in Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine have conducted business, attended family events, worked and shopped across a border that has long facilitated everyday exchanges between the two countries. Trump’s anti-Canada policies have proved damaging to many towns and communities whose livelihoods depend on that relationship.
The contrast between the two campaigns could hardly have been sharper. With much of the country finally focused on the mid-terms, voters are being presented with a clearer picture of what the two parties represent and what their choices may mean for the country’s future.
Obama was particularly scathing about Trump’s preoccupation with personal projects and elaborate renovations at the expense of the concerns confronting ordinary Americans.
“I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but he seems very focused on home renovations. He should be on HGTV. Guy’s building a ballroom that’s bigger than the White House. He’s paved over the Rose Garden. Put a helicopter pad on the South Lawn, and there’s gold everywhere. What’s up with the gold? Everything, more gold. He’s got the White House looking like Saddam Hussein opened a Cheesecake Factory. Just gold everywhere. … So, he’s clearly not focused on lowering prices for you.”
It was a pointed attack on a president whose public image increasingly revolves around spectacle while voters struggle with the costs of everyday life.
Obama reminded Americans that mortgages, healthcare and energy bills were placing growing pressure on household budgets. Although the decisive issues in individual election contests often vary from district to district, inflation, housing and education costs, and workplace opportunities remain central concerns for voters.
In a country where many people commute ten kilometres or more each day to and from work in their own vehicles, fuel prices matter enormously. Filling a large diesel pick-up truck with a 200-litre tank can cost close to US$500 at the prices described in the campaign debate, taking money directly out of household budgets. Farmers, many of whom depend on diesel-powered machinery, face additional pressure from rising input costs, including fertiliser. Canadian supplies are particularly important to parts of the American agricultural sector, where tariffs and trade tensions can add to the burden.
Trump himself drew attention to the energy-price problem during a campaign appearance in rural Georgia. He told his audience that the energy business was booming because of the war in the Middle East, with oil companies benefiting as buyers turned to Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana for supplies.
“Our country is making hundreds of billions of dollars because of what’s happened in the Middle East, because they’re coming to Texas and they’re coming to Oklahoma and they’re coming to Louisiana and they’re taking that oil.”
Trump acknowledged that his advisers had warned him against emphasising the windfall while Americans were paying more at the pump. But he has rarely been a president to suppress whatever happens to be on his mind.
“I can just see the fake headlines. President Trump is talking about all the money they’re making while people are suffering at the pump. I don’t give a damn. We’re making a frickin’ fortune.”
The remark captured the problem confronting Republicans. What may sound like a celebration of American energy profits to one audience can sound like indifference to household hardship to another. Voters concerned about the cost of living are unlikely to be reassured by a president who appears more interested in the fortunes being made by the energy industry than in the bills being paid by ordinary families.
Ohio, meanwhile, drew national attention for a different reason. Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, an Indian-American entrepreneur and politician, released an advertisement featuring the estranged mother of his Democratic opponent, Dr Amy Acton. The advertisement portrayed Acton as a liar, relying on allegations from a mother who had, reportedly, left her daughter decades earlier and fled the state with her husband to avoid his prosecution over the alleged sexual assault of the then 12-year-old girl.
Trump and Vice-President JD Vance backed Ramaswamy’s use of the advertisement. Yet, the decision provoked criticism across party lines, with politicians and members of the public questioning the judgment of the candidate and his advisers in bringing a deeply personal family history into an already contentious campaign.
The episode illustrated the increasingly harsh and personal character of American political contests. When the pursuit of electoral advantage overrides questions of fairness, decency and judgment, the damage extends beyond individual candidates. It further erodes public confidence in the political process itself.
The American backlash also appears to form part of a wider international pattern, although the political circumstances differ considerably from country to country. In Israel, the struggle to secure a governing majority has placed coalition politics at the centre of the debate over Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership. In Brazil, voters have rallied behind Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva against the right-wing political forces associated with Jair Bolsonaro’s movement. In Bulgaria, a student-led political movement has challenged established power, while Hungary has witnessed the defeat of its long-serving right-wing leadership after more than a decade in office.
Should these developments be interpreted as a worldwide rejection of hate-mongering and authoritarian politics? Not necessarily. Each country has its own political dynamics, economic grievances and electoral calculations. But taken together, such developments may indicate a broader demand for governments that deliver practical results, respect democratic institutions and respond to public concerns rather than concentrating power around a single leader.
They also reflect how unpopular Trump’s approach to government has become in much of the international community. His confrontational diplomacy, trade disputes and disregard for established alliances have unsettled partners and adversaries alike.
Trump’s presidency, meanwhile, appears to be following a familiar pattern from his six-decade business career: grand promises, dramatic declarations and outcomes that repeatedly fall short of the claims made on his behalf. He has consistently projected strength as the ultimate answer to disagreement, showing little inclination to treat negotiation and compromise as preferable alternatives to coercion.
The remaining years of his presidency will test both his personal capacity to govern and the resilience of the institutions surrounding him. Questions about his age, health, public appearances and ability to sustain the demands of the office have become increasingly difficult to ignore. At the same time, his political allies have demonstrated a willingness to challenge established conventions in pursuit of their objectives.
The possibility of prolonged disputes over the mid-term results cannot be dismissed. Partisan US attorneys have been appointed in several districts, raising concerns about whether allegations of electoral irregularities might be pursued selectively, including where the underlying claims are relatively minor. The prospect of legal challenges, investigations and competing interpretations of voting procedures could prolong uncertainty well beyond Election Day.
Control of Congress matters enormously in this environment. The party holding a majority in the House of Representatives or the Senate has considerable influence over legislative priorities, committee investigations, procedural rules and the administration’s ability to advance its agenda. A change in congressional control would, therefore, represent a significant shift in the balance of political power.
For much of the first half of Trump’s second term, congressional Republicans have appeared to follow the president with little resistance, behaving like Boy Scouts marching to a cadence set by their leader. The consequences have extended well beyond political rhetoric. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has pursued an aggressive deportation campaign, raising serious questions about due process, the treatment of immigrants and the extent to which enforcement measures have been applied without adequate regard for individual circumstances or legal protections.
The Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have also faced mounting criticism over allegations of politicisation. Institutions expected to uphold the law impartially have increasingly been portrayed as instruments of partisan interests, with concerns that some officials lack the independence, professional judgement or respect for constitutional restraints that their positions demand.
The damage caused by such perceptions is profound. Public confidence in law enforcement and the administration of justice depends on the belief that the law applies equally, irrespective of political affiliation. When that confidence erodes, the institutions themselves become casualties of the political conflict.
Meanwhile, early voting is already under way in half of the states, with many more voters casting absentee ballots by mail. The votes will not be counted until Election Day, November 3, but the scale and distribution of early participation are already attracting attention. Democratic voters, in particular, regard voting early as one way to ensure that their ballots are cast before any last-minute controversy or attempted interference by Trump and his allies.
Polling and media reporting suggest a difficult outcome for Republicans. Historically, the party occupying the White House tends to lose congressional seats in mid-term elections, as voters use the opportunity to register dissatisfaction with the administration. But the extent of any Republican losses remains uncertain. It is not yet clear how much of the early vote reflects the habits of regular voters and how much represents a newly energised electorate responding to the political climate.
Nor can anyone confidently predict how the administration will react if the results are as damaging as current indicators suggest. What can be expected is the unexpected: legal manoeuvres, political confrontation and attempts to exploit institutional paralysis at a moment when the country needs clarity and stability.
My brother Rick’s warning about hiring a clown and getting a circus may have been delivered as a joke. But the approaching mid-terms are no laughing matter. They will test whether American voters are prepared to impose limits on a president who has repeatedly challenged constitutional conventions, whether Republicans are willing to reclaim some independence from their leader, and whether the country’s democratic institutions can withstand the pressures placed upon them.
The verdict will not, by itself, repair the damage or restore public trust. That will require years of work, institutional courage and a renewed commitment to the principles that distinguish constitutional government from personal rule.
But the election could mark an important beginning. For a country that has spent years watching presidential spectacle displace serious governance, the choice is becoming increasingly clear: continue with the circus, or insist that those entrusted with power return to the serious business of governing.
—The writer has worked in senior positions at The Washington Post,
NBC, ABC and CNN and also consults for several Indian channels
The post America’s Circus: Trump Faces His Reckoning appeared first on India Legal.