A pivotal moment in U.S. political history has been recorded. U.S. President Donald Trump, in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, portrayed himself as a crowned ruler – an image laden with symbolism and political intent. The timing and deeper meaning of this portrayal could signal a dramatic shift not only in American politics but also in the broader liberal world order.
At first glance, Trump’s self-aggrandizing image evokes two literary classics: "A Tale of Two Cities" and "The Emperor’s New Clothes." In "A Tale of Two Cities," Dickens chronicles the violent overthrow of an entrenched elite by a revolutionary force, a theme Trump appears to embrace. He casts himself as a populist insurgent, railing against the political establishment – an elite class composed of Wilsonian liberals and neoconservatives. His inner circle reflects this ethos, notably comprising non-Ivy League figures and political outsiders from rural America. Trump’s rhetoric underscores his ambition to re-center American politics around the concerns of the heartland, challenging the dominance of coastal elites.
At the same time, Trump’s imagery aligns with "The Emperor’s New Clothes." To his followers, he embodies the fearless truth-teller, exposing the rot within the political class. To his critics, however, he is a ruler oblivious to his own shortcomings – his self-fashioned grandeur masking deep flaws. This paradox defines his political persona: an anti-establishment figure who once occupied the highest office in the land, a disruptor thriving within the very system he claims to dismantle.
A famous "Star Wars" quote – “The Force will be with you, always” – offers an apt lens through which to view Trump’s ideology. In George Lucas’ saga, hope is the driving force against tyranny, even in the darkest times. Trump, in his worldview, sees the present moment as a period of unparalleled crisis for the U.S. He argues that the political elite has become deaf to the needs of “real” Americans, governing not in their interests but in service to transnational corporate and financial networks.
Trump channels this populist anger as a weapon against the establishment. His critics dismiss his portrayal of himself as a crowned ruler as a sign of megalomania and narcissism, yet they often fail to grasp the strategic intent behind it. Trump’s focus is not merely on consolidating his base; his goal is to strip the elite of its perceived legitimacy and dismantle the structures that sustain it. This mission explains his early actions in office – firing career bureaucrats, slashing public budgets and issuing an executive order establishing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). His rhetoric has repeatedly lambasted the Senate as an institution out of touch with the people. His appointees, criticized as less qualified than those of past administrations, reflect a deliberate break from the post-Kennedy technocratic consensus.
Trump’s political vision echoes that of Theodore Roosevelt, who championed the concerns of the rural working class over the interests of financial elites and corporate conglomerates. His emphasis on American exceptionalism rests on the assertion that the country has been hijacked by an insular elite, disconnected from the realities of everyday Americans. His strategy is thus one of institutional disruption –replacing a meritocratic elite with a new political order rooted in nationalist and populist ideals.
Trump’s decision to crown himself on social media is not merely symbolic; it also signals profound shifts in his approach to foreign policy. Traditionally, U.S. presidents are associated with doctrinal approaches to international affairs – the Monroe Doctrine, the Truman Doctrine or the Bush Doctrine. However, Trump’s ambition extends beyond formulating a doctrine; he seeks to establish an enduring school of thought.
His foreign policy maneuvers, often dismissed as erratic, bear the imprint of historical precedent. His interest in acquiring Greenland and discussions about Canada were widely ridiculed by media outlets, yet such territorial ambitions have deep roots in U.S. history. The Louisiana Purchase (1803), the Florida acquisition (1819), the Gadsden Purchase (1854) and the Alaska Purchase (1867) were all driven by strategic imperatives. While the first three purchases secured continental expansion, the acquisition of Alaska established a maritime buffer against geopolitical rivals. The logic underlying these historical transactions aligns with Trump’s thinking: territorial expansion and economic sovereignty as tools of national strategy.
Trump’s foreign policy philosophy can be compared to the approaches of President Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State William H. Seward, who viewed geopolitics through a zero-sum lens. Yet neither of these figures is credited with founding a foreign policy school, as their ideas did not outlive their administrations. Trump, in contrast, aspires to create a long-lasting movement – one that views foreign policy through the lens of transactional pragmatism rather than ideological commitments. His crown, therefore, is not just a symbol of personal ambition but a declaration of intent: a rejection of traditional diplomacy in favor of a hard-edged, nationalist approach.
Trump’s portrayal of himself as a crowned ruler is more than a political stunt – it is a carefully crafted message to both his supporters and his detractors. It underscores his belief that the American political order is fundamentally broken and that he alone can dismantle it. His domestic policies reflect an insurgent strategy aimed at uprooting the post-Kennedy elite structure, while his foreign policy signals a return to an older, more transactional vision of American power. Whether his movement will achieve lasting influence remains uncertain. Yet, as history has shown, once a political ideology gains momentum, it can reshape institutions for decades. Trump’s self-coronation may be a provocation, but it is also a proclamation: He is not merely seeking power – he is seeking to redefine the very nature of American governance.
The question remains: Is this the dawn of a new era, or the final act of a political spectacle?
