Around the World with Current Affairs Unfiltered
1. On November 5, American voters headed to the polls, reelecting President Donald Trump. Since returning to the presidency in January, among other developments, he has signed more than 50 executive orders, ranging from ending birthright citizenship to withdrawing from the World Health Organization. What are your thoughts on President Trump’s first weeks in office?
Strategically, he remains the same Trump we’ve seen for the past eight years. His approach of "flooding the zone" has been so relentless that the public experiences a kind of decision fatigue or in this case, Trump fatigue. In just his first week, he implemented sweeping policy changes and sowed chaos within long-standing institutions like USAID. The sheer speed of it all made it nearly impossible for both the media and the public to determine what to focus on or what was worth fighting over. This mirrors his first term: hiring and firing staff at an unprecedented pace (à la measuring time in "Scaramucci’s"), blindsiding his own team with major policy shifts announced via social media, and shaping narratives with "alternative facts".
Same man, same strategy, different day.
But when it comes to content, the situation is drastically different. As much as people and talking heads alike like to say, “We’ve seen him as president before, of course we saw this coming!”, the reality is that nothing from his first term fully prepared us for the scale and speed of the changes we’re witnessing now. What we’re seeing now isn’t just about policy shifts; it’s about revenge. There’s a deliberate effort to erode government institutions, dismantle public trust, and treat the rule of law as an inconvenience.
Nobody could have fully predicted the extent of what’s unfolding. We are in uncharted territory when it comes to the consequences of his actions. The real question now is whether our institutions are strong enough to withstand this. And if they aren’t, are we willing to fight for them?
2. No fan of multilateralism or the international order, President Trump has fundamentally changed the rules of diplomatic engagement. As the United States begins to withdraw from international alliances and organizations, what are the foreign policy implications of an increasingly isolated United States?
The funny thing about an isolated United States is that when you say the word “isolationist,” most politicians recoil, regardless of party. But rebrand it as “America First,” and suddenly, it’s a rallying cry. The implications of embracing this repackaged isolationism are massive and cannot be understated.
We have already withdrawn from the World Health Organization, severing vital communication with global health agencies about known outbreaks and potential new strains of disease. With any luck, we won’t see another COVID-like pandemic under this presidency, but the reality is that infectious diseases don’t respect borders. Bird flu is already on the rise, and without international coordination, our ability to track, prevent, and contain it is severely hindered. The cost of isolationism in public health could be measured in lives.
Then there’s NATO which Trump has repeatedly attacked for the better part of eight years. Abandoning our alliances (NATO especially) is the geopolitical equivalent of handing the car keys to a drunk driver. The United States is the deterrent. For Russia, watching the U.S. walk away from NATO would be a gift of massive proportion. That’s not to say NATO would completely collapse, but without U.S. support, its capabilities would be significantly weakened. Especially if we not only withdrew but also refused to provide any form of assistance when conflict inevitably arises.
Isolationism isn’t strength. It’s a gamble with national security, global stability, and public health. History has shown that when the U.S. turns inward, the world doesn’t become safer; it becomes more volatile. Since World War II, the U.S. has played the role of global leader and stabilizer, and if we step back, there won’t be an empty space. Someone else will fill the void and right now, China is the frontrunner. Whether or not we think we can afford to isolate ourselves, we certainly won’t be able to afford the consequences.
3. On Friday, February 28, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with President Trump and Vice President JD Vance with the intention to negotiate a deal around Ukraine’s rare earth materials. The meeting ended in a public clash, with VP JD Vance accusing Zelenskyy of being “disrespectful” to the U.S. As a result, Trump announced a pause of all military aid to Ukraine. What are the implications of this shocking blow-up?
We are already seeing the implications of halting U.S. aid to Ukraine unfold in real time. For starters, no deal was signed following the collapse of negotiations, leaving Ukraine increasingly vulnerable. The most realistic scenario in terms of territorial and geopolitical consequences is that without further U.S. security guarantees to Ukraine, Russia will agree to whatever peace deal is currently on the table, one that will undoubtedly favor their interests in some way. Then, after a brief (2-3 year) pause to regroup and rearm, Russia will likely invade Ukraine again, having learned from their previous mistakes and capitalizing on Western hesitation.
Beyond Ukraine, the global ramifications are already coming into focus. Europe is actively preparing for a world where the United States is no longer a reliable partner. In the immediate aftermath of the meeting, we are seeing European nations rally around Ukraine, holding emergency meetings to determine how they can fill the void left by the United States. This isn’t just about military support, it’s about a fundamental shift in how global security and alliances function. For decades, the U.S. has been the backbone of defense in the West, and now, allies are being forced to reassess whether they can count on us at all.
This move also signals to adversaries beyond Russia that the U.S. is retreating from its leadership role on the world stage. If we won’t uphold our commitments to Ukraine, why would China believe we will stand firm on Taiwan? Why would smaller nations threatened by regional powers have any confidence in U.S. support? The credibility of American deterrence is at stake, and once that credibility is lost, it will be incredibly difficult to restore.
Simply put, stopping aid to Ukraine doesn’t just change the course of this war. It will change the entire geopolitical order. The world is moving on without us, and if we continue down this path, we may find ourselves on the outside looking in, with far less influence and far more instability both domestically and globally.
4. America is more polarized today than it has ever been in the past. What concerns you most about the political climate?
What concerns me the most about the current political climate is the sheer level of hatred and vindictiveness in our rhetoric in tandem with the inability to fight against it. Bolstered by the words and actions of our own president, it permeates every facet of political discourse. Scrolling through social media has become exhausting when every other post or comment seems designed not to inform or persuade, but to incite rage.
Since January 2021, I’ve maintained two separate X/Twitter accounts. One where I follow only right-wing accounts and another where I follow only left-wing accounts. What I find both fascinating and deeply alarming is that even when right-wing talking heads and politicians post about what they consider victories, the messaging is still framed as an attack. Take last week’s budget resolution as an example. Nearly every right-wing post about it contained some version of “It passed! …but Democrats want to tax your tips,” which was a complete lie. Nowhere in the resolution was there mention of a tax on tips, but the framing was designed to stoke anger rather than celebrate what should have been legislative win for Republicans. Beyond that, accounts like LibsOfTikTok continue to engage in outright harassment, doxxing individuals (often from already vulnerable communities) and actively encouraging followers to contact their workplaces, putting real people in danger.
On the other side of the aisle, I worry that Democrats have become too complacent. We are now four months past election day, over a month into Trump’s presidency and there is still no clear messaging strategy. At a time when bold, clear, and consistent communication is needed more than ever, Democrats appear unprepared to fight. Even more frustrating is the fact that some of the party’s most effective communicators such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were passed over for leadership positions in favor of senior members with little to know presence to those outside their district. Instead of elevating voices that know how to rally the public, the party has remained frustratingly stagnant, seemingly unaware of the urgency of the moment.
This combination (the right’s aggressive, rage-fueled rhetoric and the left’s lack of a coherent, forceful response) creates a deeply troubling environment. It’s not just polarization; it’s the erosion of trust, truth, and even basic political engagement. If things continue down this path, I worry that the real battle will be whether the country itself can withstand the consequences of a political landscape driven by extremism on one side and inaction on the other.
6. What are some trends that you are watching right now? What can we expect in the days and weeks ahead?
One of the biggest things I’m paying attention to right now is the role of the courts. In almost every episode of Current Affairs Unfiltered, I find myself coming back to this, because it’s one of the most important dynamics in our political system today.
During Trump’s first term, and even in the legal battles that followed his presidency, he largely adhered to court rulings. He might have hated the decisions, he might have kept litigating them endlessly, but there was never a serious expectation that he would outright ignore the judicial branch. That is no longer the case.
Now, we’re hearing people in Trump’s inner circle such as Elon Musk, J.D. Vance, and Trump himself, actively floating the idea of disregarding court rulings. This is not just rhetoric; it’s a dangerous shift in how the executive branch views its accountability to the law. The judiciary has traditionally been one of the key checks on presidential power, and in the past, even presidents who disagreed with rulings ultimately abided by them.
This is especially concerning given the current dysfunction in Congress. The legislative branch is supposed to serve as another check on executive power, but it isn’t functioning as such right now. The Republican-controlled House has shown no interest in holding Trump accountable, and even Senate Republicans have largely fallen in line. That means, in many cases, the courts are the only institution standing in the way of executive overreach.
If Trump decides to ignore the courts, I mince no words: things will get bad. The rule of law only works when those in power agree to abide by it. If that agreement crumbles, we are in uncharted and deeply dangerous territory.
Paige Fullman is a Chicago native with a background in nonprofit and government work, including experience interning in the U.S. Senate and the Department of State. Currently working as a communications professional, she integrates her expertise in policy, media, and public engagement to make complex political issues more accessible through her podcast Current Affairs Unfiltered. Paige holds a master’s degree in U.S. foreign policy and national security from American University and a bachelor’s degree in sociology from DePaul University. Passionate about bridging the gap between policy and the public, she is committed to fostering informed discussions on today’s most pressing issues.
You can listen to her recent episode, “Vouchers, Villains, and the War on Public Schools w/ Jasmine Bolton” and other Current Affairs Unfiltered episodes on your preferred streaming platform.