The “Might Makes Right” Policies of the Trump Administration

By Victor Sperandeo with the Curmudgeon

Introduction:

President Donald Trump’s renewed pattern of global threats and unilateral expressions of extreme power underscores an increasingly volatile approach to U.S. foreign policy. Trump’s willingness to actually use and propose unconstitutional invasions — most recently extracting Maduro from Venezuela, threats to seize Greenland and to use force in Iran— reveal an administration driven more by imperialism and extractive ambition than by lawful or strategic geopolitical reasoning.

This is not an isolated lapse in diplomacy but a continuation of a U.S. President that persistently tests the boundaries of constitutional authority and international law and order. As explained below, Trump has successfully dismantled many of the checks and balances embodied in the U.S. constitution intended to curb executive branch power. This effectively is turning the U.S. into a monarchy ruled by an emperor/king, rather than the constitutional republic envisioned by America’s Founding Fathers.

Greenland: Geography and Historical Context:

Greenland is an autonomous territory in the Kingdom of Denmark, at roughly 836,000 square miles, it dwarfs most nations in physical size while housing barely 57,000 inhabitants, predominantly Inuit. By comparison, the United Kingdom — one-ninth its size — is home to almost 70 million people. The disparity between scale and population density alone highlights Greenland’s status as a vast, sparsely populated frontier rich in untouched mineral wealth.

The U.S. interest in Greenland is not new, but there’s never before been a threat to use force to acquire the territory. In December 1946, President Truman offered Denmark $100 million in gold for the island, seeking to expand American Arctic influence. The rejection of that offer did not end U.S. fascination with the island’s strategic potential. Today, Greenland’s mineral composition — rich in rare earth elements, industrial metals, and potentially one of the largest freshwater reserves on the planet — makes it an increasingly critical prize in the competition for resources underpinning the 21st-century energy economy.

Illustration by Nicola Jennings/The Guardian

….………………………………………………………………………………………

Greenland’s False Motive and Miscalculation:

Trump’s Greenland obsession has little to do with U.S. national security as he has repeatedly claimed (e.g. protection against attacks from Russian and Chinese ships that are in the region). Advancements in missile technology, including Russia’s purported “Oreshnik” hypersonic system capable of traveling at Mach 10, render Arctic buffer zones effectively obsolete. The fixation on Greenland is instead symptomatic of a broader U.S. colonialism strategy — one that treats territories not as partners but as assets to be exploited.

The same mindset underpinned the administration’s posture toward Venezuela, where national interest was framed not around regional stability, but rather gaining control of the country’s oil reserves- the largest in the world.

Trump’s transactional worldview reduces complex geopolitical relationships to the crude calculus of possession, power and profit — an ideological regression from the postwar diplomatic traditions that once defined U.S. leadership.

Violating Principles of Law and the NATO Alliance:

Worse than the ambition itself is the mechanism Trump appears willing to deploy. To even imply the use of force against Denmark — a NATO ally — is strategically reckless and legally indefensible. Such rhetoric not only undermines U.S. commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty but signals to allies that American adherence to collective security frameworks is conditional on the whims of domestic politics.

Under international law, the seizure of foreign territory without consent or compensation constitutes expropriation — an act tantamount to aggression. By normalizing this kind of rhetoric, the Trump administration corrodes the credibility of the U.S. legal position globally while setting precedents that adversaries could exploit with impunity.

Iran Overreach and Threatened Interference:

Trump’s repeated threats toward Iran, framed as support for popular uprisings, risk overextending the United States further into regional instability.

Widespread protests in Iran, now entering their third week, stem primarily from economic desperation and social repression within the Islamic republic, not external agitation. Iranian protesters in their anti-regime demonstrations are publicly backing their goal of toppling the Ayatollah regime and warning the Iranian government against violent crackdowns.

Trump has issuing strong warnings to the Ayatollah regime against violently suppressing the demonstrations and said the U.S. "stands ready to help,” threatening U.S. intervention if protesters are killed en masse. He stated that if the Iran regime starts "shooting," the U.S. "will start shooting too" and “we will be hitting them very, very hard where it hurts," implying air attacks.

While reports suggest some foreign intelligence involvement, such as from Israel’s Mossad, the fundamental drivers are internal. Trump’s attempt to insert U.S. influence into yet another deeply rooted domestic struggle illustrates a recurring failure to distinguish between moral support and political interference — a line the administration repeatedly crosses.

Update: Trump is scheduled to be briefed Tuesday on options to aid and abet the increased protests in Iran, which include military actions, cyber warfare and economic sanctions. Speaking Sunday to reporters on Air Force One, Trump said he had been reviewing military options to strike Iran after the regime was “starting to” cross his red line of not killing protestors.

“We’re looking at some very strong options,” he said. If Iran retaliates to an American attack by targeting U.S. troops in the region, “we will hit them at levels that they’ve never been hit before.”

………………………………………………………………………………………

U.S. Intervention in Venezuela Revisited:

The President’s recent setbacks in the Senate — particularly the bipartisan move to constrain his unilateral military authority in Venezuela — reflect a growing recognition in Washington that impulsive militarism serves neither U.S. national security nor public interest.

Yet Trump is undaunted. On January 10^th he signed an executive order to protect Venezuelan oil revenue from judicial seizure and allow U.S. companies to operate in Venezuela without past nationalization claims. The U.S. is taking over the sales of 30 to 50 million barrels of previously sanctioned Venezuelan crude oil and plans to control worldwide sales indefinitely.

“You’re FIRED” - Trump’s Attempt to Erase U.S. Constitutional Checks on Executive Branch Power:

From the outset of his second term, President Trump has undertaken a concerted effort to erode the institutional constraints that have historically balanced executive authority in the United States. His dismissal of 17 inspector generals—officials instituted in the aftermath of Watergate to ensure transparency and accountability within federal agencies—signaled a direct challenge to mechanisms of internal oversight.

Subsequent firings of the heads of the Office of Special Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics further diminished two core institutions established to protect whistle blowers and mitigate conflicts of interest at the highest levels of government.

Equally significant has been the administration’s instrumental use of the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) —agencies that, since the 1970s, have worked deliberately to maintain independence from political interference.

This reassertion of presidential control represents more than a tactical reshaping of personnel; it reflects an ideological campaign to undo the regulatory and legal guardrails erected after Watergate. Within conservative legal thought, this shift has been justified as a restoration of “unitary executive” authority. Yet in practice, it has weakened the system of checks and balances that once confined presidential power to constitutional bounds.

The cumulative result is an executive branch increasingly insulated from institutional constraints and more prone to personal dictatorship types of governance. Decision-making has become concentrated around loyalty rather than process, while the demarcation between public authority and private interest has blurred. For allies and adversaries alike, the transformation signals a U.S. presidency less constrained by bureaucratic oversight and more willing to deploy state power in pursuit of political or personal objectives—a development with wide-ranging implications for both domestic governance and international credibility.

Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat who was a young Senate aide in the 1970s when then President Nixon resigned in disgrace, said “what we never foresaw was a leader who was so totally defiant and shameless. He essentially decimated all the watchdogs that had been established post-Watergate.”

When a group of fired inspector generals (IGs) sued over their jobs last year, Ana C. Reyes, a federal judge, said Watergate had revealed the importance of “independent oversight of the executive branch” and that the firings — made without explanation or prior notice to Congress — “raise risk of appearing retaliatory, which can chill IGs’ work.”

To the fired inspectors, the message from the administration was clear: “They don’t want independent accountability,” said Michael J. Missal, who had served as inspector general at the Department of Veterans Affairs since 2016.

Loyalty is a top priority with the Trump administration. Its hiring plan issued in May said the goal is to find “only the most talented, capable and patriotic Americans.” One new essay question asks job applicants to identify one or two of Mr. Trump’s executive orders or priorities “that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.”

In a Truth Social post on Sept. 20^th addressed to “Pam,” (U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi) Trump sought revenge. He ordered the prosecution of prominent people on his personal enemies list — James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director; Attorney General Letitia James of New York; and Senator Adam Schiff of California (one of his many democratic nemeses in Congress). “They’re all guilty as hell,” he wrote, adding “They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”

Department leaders complied, although their attempts to charge Mr. Comey and Ms. James have been blocked by career prosecutors, judges and grand jurors. Perhaps, Trump will fire all of them too?

“It’s a perversion of the Department of Justice and also a perversion of justice,” said Stuart Gerson, a top Justice Department official in the George H.W. Bush administration and the acting attorney general in the early months of the Clinton administration.

Conclusions -- The Inevitable Decline of the United States:

Trump’s style of leadership blends populist anger with authoritarian instinct, turning foreign policy into a series of provocations instead of principled decisions. His habit of making threats, distancing allies, and disregarding constitutional limits reflects not strategic brilliance but institutional decay — government as performance rather than governance.

As trust among U.S. allies erodes and ad hoc, “shoot from the hip” diplomacy becomes the norm, personal power grabs have replaced integrity and respect. Together, these trends are speeding up America’s global decline. The deeper concern is not only the flaws of one president, but the weakness of the political system that allows it to persist. Congress and the Judicial branch have been silent, effectively doing nothing to stop Emperor Trump.

End Quotes with Comments:

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe said, “A great revolution is never the fault of the people, but of the government.” In that spirit, the Trump 2 presidency marks the corrosion of America’s foundational values. The forces he has unleashed — mistrust, moral disarray, and institutional paralysis — may yet prove more enduring than his tenure.

When a country has lost its legitimacy and capacity to govern effectively, regime change often happens. The following anonymous quote captured that sentiment.

“A failing state cannot stop a revolution whose time has come.”

…………………………………………………………………………………..

Wishing you good health, success, and good luck. Till next time…………………………………………………………………………

The Curmudgeon
ajwdct@gmail.com

Follow the Curmudgeon on Twitter @ajwdct247

Curmudgeon is a retired investment professional.  He has been involved in financial markets since 1968 (yes, he cut his teeth on the 1968-1974 bear market), became an SEC Registered Investment Advisor in 1995, and received the Chartered Financial Analyst designation from AIMR (now CFA Institute) in 1996.  He managed hedged equity and alternative (non-correlated) investment accounts for clients from 1992-2005.

Victor Sperandeo is a historian, economist and financial innovator who has re-invented himself and the companies he's owned (since 1971) to profit in the ever-changing and arcane world of markets, economies, and government policies.  Victor started his Wall Street career in 1966 and began trading for a living in 1968. As President and CEO of Alpha Financial Technologies LLC, Sperandeo oversees the firm's research and development platform, which is used to create innovative solutions for different futures markets, risk parameters and other factors.

Copyright © 2025 by the Curmudgeon and Marc Sexton. All rights reserved.

Readers are PROHIBITED from duplicating, copying, or reproducing article(s) written by The Curmudgeon and Victor Sperandeo without providing the URL of the original posted article(s).