From impulsive decisions and diplomatic insults to eye-watering tariffs and threats of war and invasion – the first year of Donald Trump’s second term has been filled with actions and words that have caused global outrage and uncertainty. But has the president who promised to put America First actually succeeded? Has the “mad-man” method stopped the world’s despots in their tracks? The BBC’s former North America editor Jon Sopel, Sky News’s international correspondent Diana Magnay and pollster Chris Hopkins answer the question: is Trump actually a good president?

From impulsive decisions and diplomatic insults to eye-watering tariffs and threats of war and invasion – the first year of Donald Trump’s second term has been filled with actions and words that have caused global outrage and uncertainty.

But has the president who promised to put America First actually succeeded? Has the “mad-man” method stopped the world’s despots in their tracks?

The BBC’s former North America editor Jon Sopel, Sky News’s international correspondent Diana Magnay and pollster Chris Hopkins answer the question: is Trump actually a good president?

The striking thing about this presidency is how quickly the jaw-droppingly unimaginable just becomes normalised and almost shoulder-shrugging banal. Let’s start not with Donald Trump, but with the first lady, Melania. Her production company just pocketed $40m dollars from Jeff Bezos and Amazon to star in the most mind-numbing “documentary” ever.

In what other presidency would it have been ok for the first lady to enrich herself to the tune of $40m when all she was doing was telling the American people what she does as the president’s wife? Can you imagine what Trump might have said if Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama had done the same while in office? If she wants to tell the story of being FLOTUS – a taxpayer funded position – she shouldn’t accept a single cent.

But why bat an eyelid at that when Trump took a gold bar, worth $130,000, and a gold Rolex clock from Swiss businessmen and then cut tariffs on Swiss goods from 39 per cent to 15 per cent?

That, in turn, is nothing compared to how Eric Trump flew to Vietnam to unlock planning concerns over a $1.5bn hotel complex with three golf courses that the Trump organisation wanted to build. Uncannily, he arrived in Hanoi at the exact same time as his dad was negotiating in Washington with Vietnamese leaders over what tariffs the Asian country would pay. And guess what? The communist authorities trampled all over local planning concerns, compulsory purchase orders were enforced on local Vietnamese farmers who had to sell their land for a fraction of what it was worth, and the Trump Organisation project was given the go-ahead.

But that received scant attention because we’d already seen the Qataris give the 47th president a luxury jet as an “unconditional gift”.

Now let’s go down the generous route: maybe Melania’s elaborate thoughts are worth millions, the golf course complex was about to be greenlit regardless, and it was just sheer generosity that led the Qataris to gift-wrap a plane in a ribbon and bow. Or – and call me a dreadful old cynic – is this pay to play? Bribery? Corruption?

There are plenty of other examples. The shakedown of some of America’s biggest and most prestigious law firms was startling. The president extracted promises of about a billion dollars’ worth of free legal work from firms in return for him NOT not banning them from doing lucrative government work. It is not the enrichment of the USA that he negotiated. It was the enrichment of “charities” and conservative causes he wants to support.

The White House rejoinder to this is that it’s not corrupt when it is happening in plain sight. It’s an interesting argument. But if you go out tomorrow and commit a robbery in plain sight, my guess is the long arm of the law is still going to say it’s still a robbery.

That is what makes this presidency so troubling. It is governing without guardrails. The much-vaunted checks and balances of the US constitution, in Trump’s mind, don’t exist. And whether it is cabinet colleagues, foreign leaders or corporate titans, like Jeff Bezos, there appears to be a profound fear of upsetting the guy in the Oval Office. That may be good for Trump but, if we’re to be high-minded for a minute, is it good for the office of the presidency or for democracy?

In corporate land, the likes of Bezos know what they’re dealing with, and if they want their sprawling business interests to flourish then suck up to the king. Many foreign leaders have made the same calculation. And unlike Trump’s first term, he has surrounded himself with cheerleaders. No one dares say “are you sure Mr President?”

That leads to the grotesque scenes that we saw in Minneapolis with peaceful protestors being killed, as his quasi-private army of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) officers snatch anyone they suspect of being brown or black, where the knuckleheads in charge have to be reined in.

Then there is the justice department which seems to be more in the business of retribution and vengeance against Trump’s critics. These efforts have largely failed, thanks to the constitution just about working.

This all may pass – or snap-back – as those of a more optimistic disposition might say. But surely it would be negligent not to consider what might happen next. Could it not be that Minneapolis was a trial run for the midterm elections in those swathe of Democrat cities across the country? Autocrats don’t need to cancel elections to retain power.

What would be the consequence of posting thousands of heavily armed ICE officers across these conurbations in the run up to polling day? If you are brown or black (still largely Democrat voters), would you go out to vote and risk having a gun poked in your chest by some anonymous ICE officer, his face covered by a bandana?

Suppressing turnout in electoral districts which the Democrats are likely to win, thanks largely to their support from minorities, would be highly effective. Invoking the Insurrection Act would allow the president to do that.

In the shadow of Andrew, Prince Harry’s exile just became more shameful

William is seething with anger – and he wants you to know it

War with Russia is upon us, whether we accept it or not

This is what teachers want parents to know about SEND reform

At the Munich Security Conference, senior Democratic lawmakers were there seeking to reassure the rest of the world that in three years’ time, Trump would be gone. History.

But an awful lot can change in three years. Just think what has happened in the first year of the second Trump presidency. And if Trump were to go before 2029, and the man who is a heartbeat away from the presidency, JD Vance, were to replace him, then what? Is that an entirely reassuring prospect?

Sure, he would be less impulsive, and wouldn’t have a compulsive need to put his name on airports and arts centres, as someone else does. But would America snap-back to its leadership role in the world, with its upholding of the rules-based order, support for the western alliance and spear-carrier for liberal democracy? That ship has sailed off into the sunset.

Trump has turned the US into a laughing stock

© iNews