American democracy is viewed as one of the strongest in the world because of a set of assumptions that the constitution is based on: The political system would always respect the principle of constitutional checks and balances, the country would have a powerful president who nevertheless would be accountable for its use to the legislature and the judiciary and each wing of the government would support and control each other to maintain power balance making it possible for the people to exercise the right of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

For many observers of American politics, the notion of checks and balances is currently under increasing stress. President Donald Trump’s expansive definition and use of presidential power have created uncertainty in the bureaucracy and economy. It is remarkable to see thousands of bureaucrats fired and groups of young people under 30—some even under 20—aggressively accessing some of the vital secrets of the state, all in the name of improving performance and cutting costs.

In this adventure, Trump has the support of Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur who was a liberal donor in the presidential election. The “Muskians” seem to view themselves as tech wizards capable of solving all the problems of efficiency and productivity with the touch of a button. Meanwhile, the Republican party that backs the president seems too stunned and afraid to react. Nevertheless, Trump’s grip on his party looks so strong that even those who strongly disagree with his policies are unwilling to come out.

Similarly, the Democratic party, the opposition, hasn’t formulated a coherent strategy to assert itself. The pace of executive orders has been so rapid that the Democrats have lost a sense of direction. The show has just begun for ordinary citizens, so it may be too early for them to comment without understanding which direction the country is headed. However, it seems reasonable that political polarisation will likely increase in the next four years before a new equilibrium.

In foreign policy, Trump, true to his business background, has emerged as the proponent of “deal diplomacy,” where calculations of economic cost and benefit of a decision become the overriding consideration as a guide for action. The implicit ideological narrative associated with the fundamentals of the American constitutions and the logic of international law seems destined to take a back seat in the coming days. Trump’s vision of Gaza as a new “Riveria of the Middle East” owned by the US is a pointer in that direction. On the other hand, other powerful nations, especially those with advanced technology and independent nuclear capability, irrespective of their political system, should be able to manage their links with the US as long as they come up with a deal. In this equation, trade and tariff will be two crucial variables.

Trump has put a lot of faith in tariffs to advance his deal diplomacy. However, excessive reliance on this instrument has its limits. Imposing tariffs on other large trading nations is not a one-way street; it could lead to inflation, raise inflationary expectations and create uncertainty in the US economy. Over-emphasizing tariffs to achieve a deal can be a zero-sum game where all nations, including the US, will lose. It is a risky instrument. However, the word tariff seems to be the essence of the new administration's international trade policy.

A deal-focused American foreign policy unbothered by the conventional approach of alliances and agreements is a new trend that the world may see in the future. It could also be a way to force changes in the perception of a problem or to conceptualise new alternatives that may be outrageous. The call to Canada to accept the status of the 51st state of the US is a case in point. The image of friend or foe becomes an elastic proposition, and a country is never sure where it fits in the continuum. It may gradually force the European powers to think of joint undertakings to emerge as a great world power outside the US security umbrella.

A multipolar world with a different perception of democracy and security is the foreseeable future scenario. As a liberal democracy emphasising a humanistic ideological narrative, the US, despite many criticisms, has been the inspiration for many nations worldwide. It is this soft power that is likely to erode in the future.

In his book The Art of the Deal, which was on the best sellers list for five weeks in 1987, Trump outlined nearly a dozen strategies that he considers vital for a successful deal. One of them is particularly striking: It states that a successful strategy demands focus on a theme to be pursued relentlessly, however difficult it may seem. Over time, Trump thinks the opposition will “melt away” and the deal will be through. There is the danger that with deal diplomacy of this kind taking centre stage without well-thought-out moral and institutional parameters to define its boundary conditions, the logic of ends justifying the means will gain momentum in the future.

For small countries like Nepal, the path ahead is not easy. Our southern and northern neighbours are competitors and adversaries in the international arena. We are in what could be labelled a “potential conflict zone.” It is difficult to predict how the new focus on deal diplomacy will affect the US perception of its relationship with Nepal. For Nepali policymakers, the best course of action is internal political cohesion, enhanced focus on better service delivery to the people, better utilisation of available resources and balance in foreign relations based on sincerity and trust so that there is little reason for outside powers to worry. It is time to be cautious and wise so that any possible turmoil in the international political climate remains relatively peaceful inside Nepal.