Trump's Year: Triumphs, Failures, Chaos, and 'Quick Deals' Shattered by Reality

January 20 marks one year since the inauguration of the 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump. During this time, he not only introduced new formats and styles of governance into political discourse but also radically expanded the understanding of the capabilities of the American presidency. Trump didn't just promise a change of course – he actually delivered it, though not always in the direction expected by global allies or even some Americans.

The first year in office is a time when a president has the broadest opportunities to implement their initiatives. UNN analyzed Donald Trump's main achievements and failures during this year – and here's what came out.

Improved situation at the southern border: immigration is Trump's main victory 

Let's start with the positive. One of the Trump administration's most significant achievements is a substantial reduction in illegal immigration to the US. According to the White House, the number of arrests at the southern border has fallen below 9,000 per month, which is 97% less than in November-December 2023, when up to 300,000 people entered illegally each month. This is a historic low – the lowest in decades. And all this without new immigration legislation: the administration merely mobilized the resources it already had – additional patrols, helicopters, sensors, cameras, and personnel – and secured funding for them from Congress.

Immigration has come to the forefront of political struggle, and Trump has strong voter support on this issue. According to polls, 82% of Americans approve of deporting all or some illegal migrants, including 95% of Republicans and 70% of Democrats. About 70% consider border control a "critically important" or "very important" priority. Overall, Trump's approach to immigration receives support from a significant portion of the population. This is a concrete political victory that should not be underestimated.

However, the strictness of the policy also has a downside. Raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), including those with fatalities, have led to increased criticism and worsened perceptions of the administration's tactics. Some Americans believe that these measures are "too harsh" and potentially make cities more dangerous. 

War in Ukraine: Trump's main failure of the year

Trump's most painful failure was the complete collapse of his promise to "end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours."

The war did not end in 24 hours, nor in 24 weeks. Despite concerns about the outcome, repeated "last offers" – Moscow stalled for time and did everything possible to blame Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. 

The White House's actions regarding Ukraine often appeared contradictory and lacked a clear strategy: from mixed initiatives to public signals that Trump considered Zelenskyy an "obstacle to peace." This sharply diverged from the sentiments of most American voters – some of whom disapprove of Trump's approach to the war, while the majority still support or want increased aid to Ukraine.

The legendary Trump-Zelenskyy scandal at the White House

One of the symbols of this failure was the loud argument in the Oval Office on February 28, 2025, between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The meeting, which was supposed to conclude with the signing of a strategic agreement on access to Ukrainian rare-earth resources and strengthening support, turned into an open diplomatic confrontation: Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance criticized Zelenskyy, interrupted him, and accused him of "insufficient gratitude" and unwillingness to negotiate, and the planned document signings and joint press conference were canceled. The President of Ukraine himself left the White House earlier, and Trump long reproached him for "unwillingness to make peace" and "disrespect for the USA." This became not only a diplomatic fiasco but also a serious blow to the image of the USA on the international stage. 

Such actions drew criticism from Western allies and gave the Kremlin an opportunity to exploit the split in the West as an informational victory. In the US, some voters perceived these events as evidence of an unstable foreign policy.

Is Trump playing for Russia?

The real pressure from the US on Russia throughout the year remained limited and contradictory. The administration never moved to a harsh escalation of sanctions that could change the Kremlin's behavior in the short term. At the same time, it cannot be said that there was no pressure at all. The US imposed sanctions against the Russian oil sector, including against Rosneft and Lukoil, as well as against traders and vessels involved in schemes to circumvent restrictions. A separate direction was the fight against Russia's so-called shadow fleet – a network of tankers transporting oil under foreign flags and through intermediaries. In 2026, the United States even took unprecedented steps, physically seizing oil tankers with Venezuelan oil operated by Russian entities. In fact, Washington showed that it was ready to act with force at sea, but this pressure remained fragmented and was not aimed at the complete economic paralysis of Russia.

Against this backdrop, the key factor in the real blow to the Kremlin's financial base was Ukraine itself. Throughout 2025, Kyiv sharply increased its campaign of strikes on Russian oil infrastructure – oil refineries, oil depots, terminals, and logistics hubs. This involved hundreds of attacks, some of which were carried out at a depth of more than a thousand kilometers from the front line. As a result, a significant part of Russia's oil refining capacity was temporarily or permanently disabled, creating a fuel shortage within Russia and reducing export opportunities. In parallel, Ukraine began striking shadow fleet vessels transporting oil in circumvention of sanctions, in the Black Sea and beyond. These attacks became an important element of the economic war against Russia.

According to a number of foreign media outlets, the Trump administration effectively gave tacit consent to such actions by Ukraine. Publicly, the White House did not announce permission for strikes on oil refineries or tankers, but at the same time, there were no sanctions, restrictions, or political penalties for Kyiv. On the contrary, the lack of reaction from the US indicated implicit approval of this strategy as a tool to pressure Russia without direct involvement of American forces. This was particularly indicative given that the United States itself was simultaneously intercepting and confiscating oil tankers linked to Russian schemes, demonstrating that the fight against the Kremlin's oil revenues was a common line.

In the end, a paradoxical situation emerged. On the one hand, Trump never dared to exert maximum political and sanction pressure on Russia, avoiding steps that could lead to a direct confrontation with Putin. On the other hand, it was precisely during his presidency that Ukraine gained de facto freedom of action in striking the most painful point of the Russian economy – oil. US sanctions, tanker seizures, and Ukrainian attacks on oil refineries together inflicted serious economic losses on Russia, but this proved insufficient to stop the war. The Kremlin adapted, and hostilities continue, making the Ukrainian direction one of the most controversial and problematic outcomes of Donald Trump's first year in office.

Middle East: temporary truce

Trump's first foreign tour of his second term passed through Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and Doha. To the sound of fanfare and the sparkle of fireworks, Trump concluded deals worth an astronomical $2 trillion, presenting them as a triumphant victory that would stimulate innovation and strengthen the US economy.

This trip marked the beginning of Trump's paradoxical but effective diplomacy in his transactional style – reaching agreements between Israel and Hamas. The truce, brokered through the active mediation of Jared Kushner, a close friend of the leaders of the Persian Gulf countries and Trump's son-in-law, and special envoy Steve Witkoff, ended large-scale hostilities. It is impossible to predict how long the truce will last, but the principle of "a worse peace is better than a good war" worked in this case.

Currently, Trump is promoting his own "Deal of the Century" – a new Middle Eastern order that grew out of the Gaza truce. He calls on Sunni leaders to form a united front against Islamist extremism and Iran's nuclear ambitions. However, instead of ideological slogans, Trump offers pragmatic agreements and strategic partnerships. Behind the beaming smiles in photo shoots with regional leaders lies a cold calculation: each signed memorandum brings closer the possibility of realizing what could become the main legacy of his presidency – the normalization of Israel's relations with the countries of the region. An additional effect is the distancing of Middle Eastern partners from Beijing.

Trump's conflict with Elon Musk: from friendship to disputes

One of the most interesting political conflicts of the year was the sharp change in relations between Donald Trump and Elon Musk – a person who was considered a de facto ally of the administration and one of the potential "allies of the technological revolution" in government.

Elon Musk was a significant financial donor to Trump's campaign, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to support his re-election, and even held a position in a government project to optimize federal spending – the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (Doge). Such steps were perceived as an alliance of big tech and political power. 

However, in the spring of 2025, a loud break occurred between them, which escalated into a public war of insults and statements on both sides. The spark of the conflict was Musk's public criticism of Trump's massive tax and budget bill, the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill. Musk called the bill "dehumanized absurdity," arguing that it would increase the budget deficit and put the US economy at risk. 

In response, Trump sharply criticized Musk, stating that he had "gone too far" and even threatened to cancel federal contracts and subsidies for Musk's companies – primarily Tesla and SpaceX – as a way to "save budget funds." This was not just a political dispute, but a concrete threat to Musk's business interests, on which not only the world of electric cars but also key space projects depend.

The conflict also moved into the public sphere on social media: Musk publicly criticized Trump in his posts on the X platform, hinted at the opacity of the Jeffrey Epstein files, and even shared messages calling for the president's impeachment. Such words became a serious escalation, as Musk is one of the most influential technology leaders and the owner of one of the largest platforms for public communication.

In June 2025, Trump officially stated that their relationship was "over" and that he did not plan to resume it in the future, noting that he no longer trusted Musk after the public breakup. 

The confrontation between Musk and Trump went beyond personal insults: it reflected deeper disagreements between technological elites and the political establishment. Musk even publicly announced the creation of his own political force – the America Party – as an alternative to the two-party system, which further complicated the political landscape and raised questions about the future influence of technological leaders on American politics. 

However, by the end of 2025, tensions began to ease. They resumed contact, including through a joint dinner at Mar-a-Lago, which signaled a possible softening of the conflict. 

Epstein Files Scandal: Pressure, Disclosure, and Political Resonance

One of the most high-profile topics in American politics this year was the struggle to disclose documents from the so-called "Epstein files" – an archive of materials in the case of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was convicted of sexual exploitation of minors and linked to many influential people in politics and business. 

Initially, Trump supported the idea of disclosing this archive, and during the 2024 campaign, he even stated his readiness to consider some parts of the materials. In November 2025, the US Congress passed a bipartisan law, the "Epstein Files Transparency Act," which obliged the Department of Justice to disclose all unclassified records related to the Epstein case in a searchable and downloadable format. President Trump signed this law, which was a significant step forward after lengthy political discussions and pressure from some lawmakers. 

However, the actual implementation of the law proved more complex and caused widespread public outcry. By the established deadline of December 19, 2025, the Department of Justice publicly released only a portion of the documents – about 125,000 pages out of more than 2 million potential files, with many materials heavily redacted, and a significant portion remaining inaccessible to the public. This became a reason for criticism from both Democrats and some Republicans, who believed that the administration was deliberately delaying the process and "locking away" the most interesting documents. 

Critics also noted that some documents, including photos and other materials, temporarily appeared on the Department of Justice website and then disappeared without explanation, fueling suspicions of concealment of parts of the archive. Such incidents gave rise to claims that the release was not a full implementation of the law, but merely a "partial demonstration" that did not provide a complete picture of the scale of the case. 

A large number of activists publicly expressed dissatisfaction with the slow disclosure and the possibility that the materials might conceal information about powerful people or potential connections of influential figures. National demonstrations and art installations even appeared on the National Mall in Washington, hinting at possible hidden contexts in the connections between Trump and Epstein. 

Social media and the media also discussed Elon Musk's statements, who hinted in the summer of 2025 that Trump might be mentioned in the as-yet-undisclosed parts of the archive, although there are currently no confirmed facts of this. This issue became an additional source of tension between proponents of transparency and those who see the Epstein case as a tool for political attacks.

For many observers and experts in the US, the "Epstein files" case became not only a legal problem but also a major political scandal: it touched upon issues of law enforcement accountability, government transparency, victim protection, and the risk of politicizing criminal investigations. 

In any case, although Trump signed the law intended to promote transparent disclosure of materials, the actual publication of the full archive is delayed, and public debate on the matter continues – making the "Epstein case" one of the most high-profile scandals in US political life in recent years. 

How Trump is destroying NATO: Greenland - a crisis of alliance

One of the most high-profile international episodes in Donald Trump's first year in office was his stance on Greenland and the consequences of this stance for relations with European allies. The topic emerged suddenly and brightly: Trump repeatedly emphasized that the United States needs Greenland for national security reasons due to its strategic location in the Arctic and the pressure of potential Russian and Chinese interests. He explicitly stated that it is important for the US to control the island, as Denmark is unable to ensure its security independently. 

These remarks caused diplomatic tension, as Greenland is an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark and a member of the transatlantic community, including NATO. Denmark and the island's leaders consistently reject the idea of transferring control of the territory to the United States, emphasizing the right of Greenlanders to decide their own fate. 

Trump's rhetoric was not limited to words. In response to critical reactions from European allies and the categorical rejection of the idea of transferring Greenland, the administration announced the introduction of customs tariffs on goods from a number of NATO countries that support Greenland in its current status – including Denmark, Norway, France, Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Finland. Initially, a 10% tariff was to take effect in February 2026, with a subsequent increase to 25% in June. 

Such a step led to widespread criticism from European leaders, who called the threat of tariffs a "blackmail method" that destroys trust between allies and undermines transatlantic solidarity.

In response to the escalating situation, the allies – Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom – issued a joint statement supporting strategic security and defense in the Arctic, but disagreeing with the tariff threats and considering such steps counterproductive to cooperation. 

Denmark, as a sovereign state, also strengthened its military presence in Greenland, working to expand Arctic defense together with allies, and created a working group with US representatives to resolve disagreements. 

European countries are also actively developing scenarios to counter possible US actions regarding the island, including diplomatic, economic, and military strategic deterrence plans. Such plans include both strengthening Greenland's defense and supporting its autonomy, as well as potential sanctions or other measures in response to the irreconcilable US position. 

The consequences for the transatlantic alliance could be serious. The demand for control over Greenland and pressure on allies on this issue create an unpredictable rift in relations between the US and Europe, threatening to undermine trust and efforts aimed at common defense and security. 

The situation with Greenland became one of the sharpest examples of how a single foreign policy initiative can turn into a crisis of trust among US allies and call into question the strategy of interaction within NATO and broader transatlantic cooperation.

US operation in Venezuela: Maduro's capture

In early 2026, the Donald Trump administration conducted a special operation in Venezuela, during which incumbent President Nicolás Maduro and his wife were captured and later brought to New York to face federal court on charges of drug trafficking, corruption, and cooperation with organized criminal groups.

The operation significantly increased pressure on the Maduro regime, limiting its control over oil resources and export revenues used to maintain power and circumvent US sanctions. US officials called the operation a "legitimate and necessary measure" to stabilize the region, combat illegal oil supplies, and demonstrate US resolve in global politics.

The special operation demonstrated that the US is ready to use military force to achieve strategic goals and became one of the most high-profile events of Trump's presidency in foreign policy.

However, critics of this operation emphasize that the abduction or forceful removal of the head of another state creates a very dangerous precedent that could undermine international norms of sovereignty and provide other states with justification to act similarly. 

What to expect from Trump next?

What will Trump do in the coming months? Predicting is a thankless task. He is known for changing plans faster than he announces them. Forecasts often lose relevance even before publication.

On the horizon is a crucial test for Trump: the midterm elections for the House of Representatives on November 3. Their outcome will determine not only his political future but also the fate of key initiatives, international agreements, and US domestic policy. At the same time, he has tools to influence public opinion, financial markets, and foreign policy, so the world will closely watch his every move.

One thing is certain: what Trump does next will largely determine the direction of US development and global politics for the coming years. The world is currently in chaos; one wants to believe that this chaos is controlled. Trump's next year will help us fully understand this.