Cold Blood

June 15, 2025

Luis Rubio

The only thing that doesn’t seem to be in short supply in the world these days—especially in public debate—is speculation about what Trump is trying to achieve with his tariffs, rhetoric, and the changes he’s making to both the structure of his government and the architecture of the global order. The whirlwind of initiatives, arguments, and actions his administration has launched in just a few months has unsettled long-standing assumptions, stoked conflicts, and, as a result, created massive uncertainty both at home and abroad. Inevitably, this way of acting fuels all kinds of conspiracy theories while emboldening activists on social media—of which Trump is an avid user—to push their positions to extremes. The question is whether there is a cold, calculated plan behind the assault or whether it’s merely a wild, aimless shootout.

Theories abound in both directions. Some portray the U.S. president as a calculating actor who is consciously reshaping the balance of power both domestically and globally. Others describe him as a circumstantial figure simply playing the role history assigned him at this moment. The most daring observers believe he has far more sinister and dangerous goals. Either way, the onslaught has been brutal—mainly due to the aggressiveness of his methods—with clear consequences for the United States’ relationships with the rest of the world. Whatever the case may be, Washington today is very different from what it was a year ago, and no one can pretend that what used to work still holds true.

Most of the assessments depict Mr. Trump as someone obsessed with a very specific set of factors that he considers essential to restoring, in his words, his nation’s greatness. In his first five months as President, Trump launched initiatives left and right, constrained only by a few judges and by what financial markets—especially the yield on ten-year U.S. Treasury bonds, widely seen as a global stability gauge—would tolerate. The issue of Treasury bonds is no small matter, given they’ve historically been considered “safe assets” in which individuals and countries (including China) invest. The yield on these bonds rose significantly in recent months, indicating increased risk (and raising the cost of debt servicing).

On the global stage, the assault has essentially aimed at imposing a new international system based on power relations instead of cooperative agreements—as if the U.S. still had the dominance it enjoyed at the end of World War II. In Trump’s worldview, the world is a zero-sum game, where there are always winners and losers; therefore, the exchange of goods, ideas, and people is inherently suspect, and multilateral organizations were designed to restrict or prevent the powerful from exercising their will.

Domestically, the attack has focused on two objectives: reducing public spending and eliminating the ideological biases that, in his view, have limited development opportunities for white men. Musk’s group acted ruthlessly, dismantling agencies, firing personnel, and canceling projects—including all kinds of scientific and social experiments. The offensive against Harvard and other institutions has reportedly involved mafia-style threats, suggesting that much of this group’s behavior is driven more by animosity than by a coherent plan. Some argue he intends to provoke an insurrection to justify authoritarian measures (the riots in Los Angeles becoming an easy excuse). Step by step, he has been challenging constitutional checks and balances—the outcome of which is the crucial issue that will determine our neighbor’s future.

Beyond personal likes or dislikes, what stands out is the aggressiveness with which Trump acts on all fronts, disregarding the long-term costs that may be incurred. Without judging his goals—many of which are not new to U.S. politics (some, such as making NATO members pay more, were raised at least as far back as Obama)—Trump’s methods seem deliberately designed to provoke hostility. This is the factor that fuels all kinds of speculation about Trump’s “true” objective: is he trying to solve problems, or does he want to become the “strongman” who dominates his country and the world by bypassing all constitutional limits? What’s at stake is obviously enormous—for the U.S., for Mexico, and for the world.

The attack has been directed equally at friends and enemies, partners and competitors. In Mexico’s case, the violation of the rules of the USMCA is a clear example. Instead of redefining internal and external rules while strengthening allies along the way—as a great leader might have done—he has chosen to dismantle the basic relationships of internal respect and global goodwill that took nearly a century to build.