Analysis of the first hundred days of the presidency of Donald Trump, and more broadly of his political strategy, is a delicate exercise, as opinions divergent. The debate is often polarized, between harsh criticism and unconditional support. In this context, Paul’s recent article in, a figurehead of Project 2025, deserves to be examined carefully. It tackles major issues, such as national security, debt and the efficiency of American governance, while highlighting the structural challenges that the country is confronted.
The central argument of in is based on the idea that the United States is in a difficult situation, both in terms of national debt and in terms of their ability to defend their interests. With a debt reaching 36 trillions of dollars, investment capacity in crucial fields, such as defense, seems to be undermined. Indeed, the juxtaposition of defense budgets with debt samples raises notable economic concerns. For comparison, US military spending amounted to $ 916 billion in 2023, far exceeding the cumulative budgets of many nations. This raises the question of the effectiveness of this expenditure: how can the country rearm and deploy its resources in a more strategic way, while meeting growing social needs?
In also addresses another worrying aspect: the state of American infrastructure and its impact on the average citizen. According to him, the degradation of infrastructure and the increase in crime fueled by migration issues indicate that the system in place does not offer a satisfactory return on investment for taxpayers. The question then arises: how to restore citizens’ confidence in federal institutions?
It is essential to explore the quests of Trump supports who see him in him a “builder” capable of straightening the bar. However, several controversial decisions, such as steep cuts in international aid or tariff wars, raise questions about their effectiveness. These choices, although being able to sit on economic rationality, have not been accompanied by a clear strategy or stakeholder consultations. A more thoughtful approach, integrating the opinion of the experts and the human dimension of these decisions, could make it possible to avoid the errors of the past and to guarantee a more stable future?
Another aspect that deserves particular attention is the perception of politics by the prism of the “Deep State” and a bureaucracy considered to be unsuitable. If distrust of experts and institutions is understandable in a post-2008 environment, it is crucial to question the mechanisms that could allow more effective and ethical governance. A reflected debate on the nature of the “revolving door” between politics and expertise could open the way to new solutions.
The question of the relationship between the economy and the defense policy cannot be overlooked. While America seeks to maintain its position as a global leader, the effectiveness of its military expenses must be balanced with internal needs. Will we be able to attract a new generation of innovators and rehabilitate infrastructure, while responding to external challenges? Reindustrialisation and debt management must be considered with a global approach that includes dialogue with allies and a long -term vision.
In this debate, it is crucial to keep in mind that current polarization can hinder constructive solutions. An open dialogue, based on facts, objective data and lived experiences, could help repair the country’s political and social fabric. The responsibility is the responsibility of everyone – elected officials, citizens and journalists – to open ways of mutual understanding.
It turns out that the situation in the United States is complex, and the challenges that arise go far beyond a simple political choice. Examination of methods and the impact of past and current decisions can shed light on the most effective governance, capable of meeting the needs of a nation in search of renewal. This necessarily goes through a desire for listening, innovation and research of shared solutions, transcending partisan cleavages.