Is the Trump 2.0 Administration in Crisis? War, Domestic Fragmentation, and the Limits of Diversionary War
- CERES
- 6 days ago
- 5 min read
Júlia Saraiva
The political landscape of the United States during the second administration of Donald Trump reveals a context of growing tension between foreign policy and domestic dynamics, marked by the overlap of institutional crises, intra-elite fragmentation, and challenges to governmental legitimacy. Far from representing an isolated episode, this scenario is embedded in a broader process of transformation in American politics, in which the erosion of traditional consensuses—especially in the realm of foreign policy—profoundly alters the mechanisms of coordination among the Executive, Legislative, and public opinion. In this context, analyzing external military engagement, congressional reactions, the reemergence of the Jeffrey Epstein case, and the hypothesis of instrumentalizing foreign policy as a distraction strategy becomes central to understanding the contours and limits of the ongoing crisis.
The military escalation involving Iran constitutes one of the main vectors of instability. The Executive’s conduct in these actions has been widely contested in Congress, reflecting not only partisan disagreements but also a deeper inflection in the relationship between branches of government. As highlighted by analyses from the Council on Foreign Relations (2025), there is a growing effort by the Legislative to assert its prerogatives regarding the use of force, particularly in light of the perception of unilateral expansion of presidential power in matters of international security since the post-9/11 period. This dynamic indicates a relevant institutional reconfiguration, in which Congress seeks to reclaim centrality in strategic decisions traditionally monopolized by the Executive.
The most significant aspect of this process, however, lies in the bipartisan nature of resistance to military intervention. Unlike episodes such as the Iraq War, where there was broad alignment between Democrats and Republicans, the current scenario reveals an unprecedented convergence among sectors of both parties opposed to conflict escalation. This movement can be interpreted in light of the growing war fatigue within American society and the ideological reconfiguration of the Republican Party, whose electoral base has increasingly incorporated elements of skepticism toward external interventionism. As argued by Oliver Stuenkel (2023), U.S. foreign policy has been progressively strained by domestic dynamics that reduce the Executive’s room for maneuver and make the maintenance of prolonged military commitments more costly.
At the same time, the resurgence of the Jeffrey Epstein case adds an additional layer of instability by exposing fractures within political and economic elites. The demand for transparency, driven by different sectors across the political spectrum, intensifies the perception of a systemic crisis, as it reinforces narratives of collusion between political power and private interests. According to coverage by the Financial Times (2025) and The New York Times (2026), the case goes beyond the traditional logic of partisan scandals, simultaneously affecting actors from different ideological affiliations and complicating the government’s narrative containment strategies. In this sense, the episode acts as a catalyst for a broader legitimacy crisis, fueling widespread distrust in institutions.
It is within this context that the theory of “diversionary war” gains analytical relevance. Developed from classic studies by Jack Levy (1989), this approach argues that political leaders, when faced with domestic pressures, may resort to external conflicts as a way to divert public attention, strengthen internal cohesion, and recover political support. The central mechanism of this strategy lies in the so-called “rally around the flag” effect, in which the perception of an external threat tends to generate temporary support for national leadership.
However, applying this logic to the contemporary U.S. context requires analytical caution. Although it is possible to identify correlations between moments of intensifying domestic crises—such as the advancement of investigations related to the Epstein case—and the escalation of rhetoric and military actions, the expected effects of diversionary war appear significantly attenuated. First, the fragmentation of the political system reduces the capacity to build national consensus around external threats. The absence of bipartisan alignment undermines the mobilizing potential of conflict, transforming war into an object of internal political dispute rather than a factor of cohesion.
Second, the transformation of the informational ecosystem, marked by polarization and the multiplicity of information sources, limits the government’s ability to control the public agenda. As noted by Fernanda Magnotta (2024), contemporary U.S. foreign policy operates within a fragmented communicational environment in which competing narratives continuously contest legitimacy. In this context, attempts to redirect public attention through external crises face structural obstacles that were not present in earlier periods.
Third, the United States’ own recent historical experience—marked by prolonged interventions and ambiguous outcomes in the Middle East—contributes to reducing societal receptiveness to external mobilization narratives. As argued by Cristina Pecequilo (2022), the legitimacy of U.S. international actions increasingly depends on their ability to demonstrate concrete results and strategic coherence, which becomes more difficult in contexts of high domestic contestation.
Thus, the attempt to use foreign policy as a distraction mechanism proves not only limited but potentially counterproductive. Rather than producing cohesion, war tends to deepen internal divisions, amplifying conflicts between the Executive and Legislative branches and exacerbating tensions within party bases themselves. This process contributes to characterizing the current context as a legitimacy crisis, in which the government faces growing difficulties in sustaining political support and coordinating its strategic agenda.
Even so, it is important to emphasize that the presence of these elements does not necessarily imply an imminent scenario of institutional collapse. The American political system retains resilience mechanisms that hinder abrupt ruptures, and the president continues to enjoy significant support from his electoral base. The possibility of political replacement—whether through impeachment or the activation of the 25th Amendment—remains contingent upon the formation of consensus among political elites, a scenario that, in the current context of polarization, appears unlikely. Figures such as J. D. Vance and Ron DeSantis emerge as potential alternatives, but the strong personalization of the Republican Party around Trump constitutes a significant obstacle to the emergence of substitute leadership.
In light of this framework, the Trump 2.0 administration can be interpreted as a political arrangement undergoing progressive erosion, in which the overlap of internal and external crises constrains the Executive’s capacity for action without, however, producing an immediate rupture. The theory of diversionary war, when applied to this context, reveals not only its explanatory potential but also its limits, showing that the effectiveness of this strategy depends on specific conditions—such as internal cohesion, narrative control, and institutional legitimacy—which are significantly weakened in contemporary United States.
Bibliographic References
Jack Levy, J. (1989). The Diversionary Theory of War: A Critique.
Council on Foreign Relations (2025–2026). Congressional War Powers and U.S. Foreign Policy.
Brookings Institution (2025). Polarization and American Foreign Policy.
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (2025). Domestic Constraints on U.S. Global Strategy.
Financial Times (2025–2026). Coverage of the U.S. political crisis.
The New York Times (2025–2026). Coverage of the Epstein case.
Cristina Pecequilo (2022). U.S. Foreign Policy.
Oliver Stuenkel (2023). The Post-Western World.
Fernanda Magnotta (2024). Analyses on U.S. foreign policy and political communication.
Júlia Saraiva
Holds a degree in International Relations from UniLaSalle-RJ and is currently pursuing a postgraduate degree in Political Science and International Relations at FAAP. Her academic research focuses on U.S. and Middle Eastern policies, with an emphasis on the influence of lobbies, military strategies, and diplomatic relations in the region. She is a researcher at the Center for International Relations Studies (CERES) and works as a consultant in business internationalization.
Comments