Introduction

The United States now hovers on the brink of a self-inflicted collapse, methodically dismantling principles it once held sacred. Wealth and resources flow into the hands of a privileged few, while its global commitments—long a cornerstone of its influence—are cast aside. The nation’s democratic principles morph into a grotesque spectacle of looming kleptocracy. In the vacuum left by this retreat, China, Russia, and other rivals stand ready to claim strategic and economic dominance. This is not mere decline, but a calculated implosion fueled by anticipated corruption at the highest levels of the Trump administration, the erosion of institutions meant to ensure good governance, and a populace detached from moral and historical anchors. Ordinary citizens, unaware, aid in the demolition of their own democratic integrity and economic resilience.

This is not gradual erosion, but a deliberate demolition orchestrated by a parasitic elite set to plunge the country into unprecedented catastrophe. Every compromised policy and institutional failure signals looming moral bankruptcy, hollowing the United States into a brittle husk. This inevitability resembles a prophecy: a system so fundamentally compromised that its downfall is mathematically certain. Careening toward self-destruction, the nation betrays every foundational democratic principle. What unfolds is a carefully staged obliteration of American influence by a kleptocratic few whose greed and ineptitude guarantee economic and geopolitical ruin. The American experiment will not end with defiant grandeur, but with a muted whimper of systematic betrayal as a morally bankrupt political class sells out the nation’s future.

Humanity’s failure to learn from history—born of ignorance, folly, and moral cowardice—enables this scenario. Soon, the United States abandons its founding ideals, channeling wealth to a select few, discarding once-reliable foreign commitments, and watching allies withdraw support. Colossal debts come due, forcing a long-postponed financial reckoning. Turning inward, Washington relinquishes global influence. China, Russia, and Iran fill the void, capitalizing on American disengagement. More restrictive labor policies trap undocumented immigrants in a hidden, exploitative economy. Economic despair and dwindling hope kindle crime, while a scholarly exodus—echoing the Great Depression—drains intellectual vitality.

With a handful of crypto players—possibly linked to Russian interests—poised to sabotage U.S. markets, loyalists work to silence dissent and dismantle checks and balances. Within a few short years, the United States surrenders its global role, leaving China and Russia to reshape world order. It is hard to see this as accidental; it bears every mark of targeted economic and political warfare. As O. Henry’s “The Octopus Marooned” reminds us, “A trust can only be wrecked from the inside.” Here, the trust is the American system—its institutions, ethics, and intellect. Tragically, a population ignorant of its own past becomes complicit. Corrupt, desperate politicians reflect widespread apathy, guiding the nation into collapse. In this environment, cultural illiteracy and moral decay render America’s downfall almost mathematically certain—a predictable, sorrowful end to an experiment once hailed as an inspiration to the world.

Dicsussion

President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed policy changes, as articulated before his inauguration on January 20, center on tightening immigration enforcement, reforming energy regulations to boost domestic production, and restructuring significant portions of the federal workforce. While each initiative targets a different segment of federal governance, collectively they represent a push toward consolidating executive authority and swiftly redirecting the policy landscape.

Immigration Enforcement:
Trump’s plans include bolstering border security through resumed construction of a U.S.-Mexico border wall and pursuing measures that challenge the longstanding principle of birthright citizenship—a right affirmed by the Fourteenth Amendment and numerous subsequent court decisions (U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)). Additionally, the administration’s emphasis on stricter enforcement aligns with his earlier promises from the 2016 campaign and mirrors the rhetoric and executive actions taken in early 2017, when he signed several immigration-related Executive Orders increasing deportations and restricting entry from specific countries (Executive Order 13767; Executive Order 13768).

Energy Policy Shift:
The proposed changes to energy policy include loosening regulations on fossil fuel extraction and scaling back federal support for renewable energy projects, particularly offshore wind initiatives. During Trump’s first term, the administration pursued a policy framework favoring deregulation and domestic energy independence, suspending or reversing Obama-era environmental rules and rolling back regulations under the Clean Power Plan (Environmental Protection Agency, 2017). Sources like the Congressional Research Service note that previous moves included approving projects like the Keystone XL pipeline and seeking to expand drilling on public lands and offshore areas (CRS Report R44432).

Federal Workforce Restructuring – Schedule F:
The reimplementation of “Schedule F” stands out as a key structural reform. Introduced via Executive Order 13957 in October 2020, Schedule F would reclassify federal employees in policy-related positions as “excepted service” employees, effectively stripping them of long-standing civil service protections (Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 207). This classification would grant the executive branch greater discretion to hire or dismiss such individuals without the traditional safeguards ensuring merit-based selection and nonpartisanship. Analysts from the Brookings Institution and the Partnership for Public Service have raised concerns that Schedule F’s removal of protections could open the door to politicized decision-making and weaken the institutional knowledge and continuity that career civil servants provide (Brookings, 2021).

Implications of Schedule F:

1. Increased Executive Control:
   By reassigning certain civil servants into Schedule F roles, the president gains broader authority to remove personnel who may oppose or slow the administration’s agenda, potentially transforming the bureaucracy into a more top-down, loyalty-driven structure.
2. Potential for Political Retaliation:
   Critics warn that Schedule F could be used as a tool for purging federal employees not on ideological grounds alone, but also for failing to endorse an administration’s narrative. This would undermine the long-held principle of an apolitical civil service, a cornerstone of modern bureaucratic governance since the late 19th century (Lewis, 2021; Partnership for Public Service, 2020).
3. Legal and Institutional Challenges:
   Such a radical alteration of the personnel system would likely face legal battles brought by federal employee unions and watchdog groups, invoking past precedent where courts have limited executive overreach into established civil service frameworks (National Treasury Employees Union v. Chertoff, 452 F.3d 839 (D.C. Cir. 2006)). Challenges would question whether a president can unilaterally reshape the civil service system without congressional approval or justification rooted in evidence-based policymaking.

Historical Example – The Spoils System and Civil Service Reform:
The tension between political loyalty and professional competence in the federal workforce is not new. Under President Andrew Jackson (1829–1837), the “spoils system” flourished, with government jobs awarded as political favors to supporters, leading to widespread patronage and corruption. This approach reflected a view of the executive branch as an instrument of political reward rather than a professionalized bureaucracy. The ensuing inefficiencies and scandals ultimately led to a national outcry and the introduction of civil service reforms, most notably the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883. The Pendleton Act established merit-based hiring and job security measures for many federal employees, laying the groundwork for a modern, nonpartisan civil service. The move toward Schedule F arguably signals a return, in spirit, to a pre-Pendleton world where political considerations could weigh heavily on staffing decisions, potentially reversing more than a century’s worth of professionalization and institutionalizing a more partisan administrative state (Skowronek, 1982).

Broader Context and Future Considerations:
By simultaneously pressing for aggressive immigration enforcement, energy deregulation, and redefining the civil service structure, President-elect Trump’s agenda exemplifies a willingness to rapidly, and in some cases unilaterally, reshape the federal government’s operating framework. Observers note that these steps could consolidate executive power and alter the balance of governance, challenging traditional checks and balances (Howell & Moe, 2020). In turn, these moves are expected to face political pushback, public debate, and judicial scrutiny, underscoring the contested nature of attempts to re-center authority within the Oval Office.

This broader effort to advance a more assertive executive branch—through immigration action, energy deregulation, and civil service restructuring—marks a critical juncture in modern governance, one whose outcomes may define the boundaries of executive power for years to come.

Tariff war

Revisiting the Tariff War in Historical and Contemporary Context

The notion that escalating tariffs can produce severe economic backlash is well-established in economic history. One of the most notable examples is the Smoot–Hawley Tariff of 1930, which sharply increased U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods. While economists debate its precise contribution to the severity and longevity of the Great Depression, there is wide consensus that this protectionist policy at least worsened the global economic climate, prolonging the downturn and damaging international trade relations (Eichengreen, 1992; Irwin, 2011).

Learning from History: Smoot–Hawley’s Enduring Lessons
The Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. ch. 4), signed by President Herbert Hoover, was initially conceived to protect U.S. agriculture and secure the “farm vote” for the Republican Party. However, what started as a targeted measure rapidly devolved into a broad-based protectionist spree. Duties were raised indiscriminately, prompting other nations to respond in kind. The result was a collapse in both U.S. imports and exports. American goods faced retaliatory tariffs, severely limiting foreign market access. While not the sole cause of the Great Depression, Smoot–Hawley undeniably aggravated an already fragile global economy. The Soviet economists of the time, observing from afar, viewed this as a fundamental miscalculation—an example of the West’s inability to temper capitalist impulses with pragmatic economic planning.

This approach not only contributed to a deepening crisis in the United States but also reshaped European economic and political landscapes. The disruption and retaliatory actions that followed rippled across borders. In regions like Western Europe, tariff wars and shifting resource bases helped pave the way for German economic dominance in the early 1930s, as Italy and France struggled with diminished trade flows. The historical record suggests that these tariff policies, fueled by short-sighted nationalism and economic myopia, created fertile ground for future conflicts, both economic and geopolitical (Kindleberger, 1973).

The Modern Parallel: Tariffs Under Trump’s First Presidency
Fast forward nearly a century, and the United States once again pursued significant tariff increases under President Donald Trump, especially on steel and aluminum imports. Officially justified as a measure to protect American industry and address unfair trade practices, these tariffs invoked memories of the economic havoc wrought by Smoot–Hawley, sparking fears of a new global trade war.

Just as in 1930, this modern protectionist turn prompted swift retaliations. The European Union threatened tariffs on emblematic U.S. products such as Harley-Davidson motorcycles, Kentucky bourbon, and Levi’s jeans. China warned of measures targeting key U.S. export sectors, hinting that America’s agricultural heartland and manufacturing base could suffer substantial losses. Australia, Canada, and other close U.S. trading partners also indicated they would respond in kind.

Calculating the Cost of the Contemporary Tariff War
Quantifying the cost of these recent tariff battles illuminates their economic toll. Studies conducted during and after Trump’s first term (2017–2021) provide concrete figures:

• Direct Costs to Consumers and Businesses:
  A 2019 analysis from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Princeton University, and Columbia University found that the tariffs cost U.S. consumers and firms roughly $3 billion per month in added tax burdens and around $1.4 billion per month in efficiency losses (Fajgelbaum et al., 2019; Cavallo et al., 2019).
• Impact on GDP and Employment:
  The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Peterson Institute for International Economics reported that escalating tariffs contributed to reduced business investment, uncertainty, and slower economic growth. By some estimates, the trade war lowered U.S. GDP growth by around 0.3 percentage points and cost tens of thousands of jobs, particularly in export-dependent industries and sectors reliant on imported intermediate goods (Bown & Zhang, 2019; IMF, 2019).
• Reduced Export Competitiveness:
  Given that steel and aluminum exports are often intermediates rather than finished products, U.S. manufacturers relying on these materials faced higher input costs. Domestic producers—especially in the Rust Belt—saw little net benefit, as retaliatory tariffs abroad meant shrinking export markets. Canada and Mexico, major buyers of U.S. metals, responded with countermeasures. In turn, this reduced U.S. competitiveness and cost American farmers, auto manufacturers, and machinery exporters significant market share abroad.

“The Lessons of Isolation” and the Broader Implications
In my article of March 2018, The Lessons of Isolation, I argue that retreating behind tariff walls and imposing protectionist measures can isolate a country economically and politically. Instead of addressing underlying structural challenges—such as technological change, global supply chain shifts, and workforce upskilling—tariffs often serve as short-term fixes that fail to deliver promised benefits to workers.

Isolationist trade policies disregard global interdependencies, misunderstanding how modern economies are deeply entwined. Like the Smoot–Hawley Tariff nearly a century before, the Trump-era tariff hikes highlight the perils of employing blunt economic tools under the guise of national interest. They remind us that when a president wields protectionist policies as a blunt instrument—“the last time the President was allowed to play this card,” as some historians say—the costs can be enormous, potentially setting the stage for a prolonged downturn, trade retaliation, and a deterioration in diplomatic relations.

A World Still Watching: From European Countermeasures to Chinese Leverage
The global response to Trump’s tariffs—whether from long-standing allies or strategic competitors—demonstrates a crucial point: No economy is an island. As in the 1930s, countries today are prepared to safeguard their interests, ensuring that tariff wars remain mutual assaults rather than one-sided triumphs. The European Union’s targeting of iconic American products, China's strategic positioning to hit U.S. agricultural exports, and even the voices from Australia warning of reciprocal action, all underscore how quickly a tariff war can escalate beyond the control of its initiator.

Beyond Protectionism, Towards Sustainable Solutions
The historical echoes of Smoot–Hawley resonate today, illustrating that tariffs are a high-stakes gamble—one that can backfire even when intended to protect domestic interests. While the international economy and political climate have evolved dramatically since 1930, the underlying principles remain: retaliation begets retaliation, uncertainty stifles investment and growth, and isolationist policies often fail to achieve their stated goals. In a globalized, interdependent world, sustainable solutions to economic challenges require cooperation, negotiation, and policies informed by long-term strategic thinking rather than reactive, short-term gain.

History Lessons

As highlighted in my mentioned previous work, The Lessons of Isolation, history teaches that turning inward with protectionist fervor may momentarily appease certain domestic constituencies, but it often sets off a chain reaction culminating in mutual economic harm. Ultimately, the lessons of past tariff wars—whether in the age of Hoover or Trump—should guide policymakers toward engagement rather than estrangement, ensuring that the instruments chosen to address economic difficulties do not end up aggravating them further.

It is unfortunate that humanity fails to learn from history, not merely due to ignorance and foolishness, but also because it so often falls short of its own moral standards.

In the nearest future, what emerges is a grim and deeply troubling landscape in which the United States fundamentally betrays its own founding ideals and global responsibilities. First, the nation’s wealth and resources will be gathered and redistributed upward, concentrated for the benefit of a narrow circle of “chosen” supporters, rather than the broader public. Second, all external interests and commitments—once a defining characteristic of American influence—will be dismissed outright, including the country’s role in international policing. This neglect will not only cost the United States the critical support of its allies, but also leave its colossal debt suddenly and devastatingly callable, forcing the nation into a financial reckoning that it can no longer defer.

Third, with Washington’s policies turning inward and disregarding the intricate web of foreign engagements, the country will relinquish its once-pivotal position on the global stage. China, Russia, Iran, and other ambitious rivals are poised to capitalize on this vacuum, rising swiftly and decisively to claim the markets, influence, and international prestige that the United States so casually surrenders. Fourth, more stringent limitations on seasonal labor immigration will push desperate, undocumented individuals to remain hidden within American borders at all costs—utterly exposed, without legal protections, and trapped in a shadow economy that erodes social stability and human dignity.

Fifth, the crime rate will climb as economic conditions deteriorate and hope wanes, reinforcing a vicious cycle of hardship and lawlessness. Sixth, just as during the Great Depression, America’s research and development, along with its academic prowess, will atrophy. Professors, scientists, and creative minds will once again flee U.S. institutions, seeking more supportive environments abroad—an intellectual diaspora that drains the country of its innovative edge. Seventh, with the majority of Bitcoin controlled by a mere 3% of crypto-addresses—assets linked to Russia-related circles and devoid of tangible backing—this tool of financial manipulation may be unleashed at will, deliberately undermining U.S. market liquidity at strategically chosen moments. Meanwhile, loyalists in key positions will help suppress internal opposition from the so-called “Deep State,” ensuring minimal resistance to the dismantling of institutional checks and balances.

All these trends, taken together, set the stage for the United States to lose its global role and stature within a matter of only a few years. The resulting power vacuum will be neatly filled by China and Russia, two nations that stand ready to reshape the world order in their favor. It becomes increasingly difficult to dismiss this scenario as mere happenstance; instead, it suggests a methodically orchestrated hostile act of economic and political warfare aimed directly at the heart of the United States.

As the classic O. Henry story “The Octopus Marooned” puts it, “A trust can only be wrecked from the inside.” Here, the trust being eroded is the American system itself—its democratic institutions, moral principles, and intellectual vitality. Tragically, these developments seem to be facilitated by a populace largely unfamiliar with the lessons of its own past. Many Americans have not read O. Henry, have not studied their own history, and show scant interest in doing so. Consequently, they become unwitting participants in this self-inflicted downfall. A corrupt and desperate cadre of politicians, motivated purely by self-enrichment, mirrors all too closely the apathy, ignorance, and moral complacency of much of the citizenry. Not an absolute majority, but enough to steer the nation toward a destiny of decline. And it is precisely this widespread cultural and historical illiteracy, coupled with moral lapses at every level, that makes the current outcome appear not only predictable, but almost inevitable.

* * *

References and Suggested Readings:

• Bown, C.P. & Zhang, E. (2019). “Measuring Trump’s 2018 Trade War Protection.” Peterson Institute for International Economics.
• Cavallo, A., Gopinath, G., Neiman, B., & Tang, J. (2019). “Tariff Passthrough at the Border and at the Store: Evidence from U.S. Trade Policy.” American Economic Review: Insights.
• Eichengreen, B. (1992). Golden Fetters: The Gold Standard and the Great Depression, 1919–1939. Oxford University Press.
• Fajgelbaum, P.D., Goldberg, P.K., Kennedy, P.J., & Khandelwal, A.K. (2019). “The Return to Protectionism.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(1): 1–55.
• IMF (2019). World Economic Outlook, October 2019: Global Manufacturing Downturn, Rising Trade Barriers. International Monetary Fund.
• Irwin, D.A. (2011). Peddling Protectionism: Smoot–Hawley and the Great Depression. Princeton University Press.
• Kindleberger, C.P. (1973). The World in Depression, 1929–1939. University of California Press.

See also:

• Saklakov, O. (2020). The Lessons of Isolation. Retrieved from https://www.saklakov.com/blog/the-lessons-of-isolation 
•  Howell, W. G., & Moe, T. M. (2020). Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy. University of Chicago Press.
• Lewis, D. E. (2021). “Trump and the Bureaucracy,” in The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: A First Historical Assessment. Princeton University Press.
• Skowronek, S. (1982). Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920. Cambridge University Press.
• Brookings Institution: Trump’s Schedule F and the Future of the Federal Civil Service
• Partnership for Public Service: Commentary on Civil Service Protections
• CRS Report R44432: Keystone XL Pipeline Development and Regulatory Review