A Thought Experiment on Realpolitik, Power, and American Stability in the Age of Trump

In the face of Donald Trump’s latest political and financial upheavals—ranging from mounting legal troubles and polarizing rhetoric to erratic economic proposals—the question arises: how would two of the most influential American strategists of the 20th century, Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, interpret and respond to this moment in U.S. history? Though both men have passed, their distinct frameworks of statecraft offer valuable lenses through which today’s instability might be analyzed.

Henry Kissinger, the architect of realpolitik, would likely approach Trump’s behavior with a mixture of strategic detachment and geopolitical calculation. For Kissinger, stability in the international system is paramount, and any domestic political developments that threaten the U.S.’s credibility on the global stage would be viewed with deep concern. Trump’s disregard for institutions, allies, and traditional diplomacy would be antithetical to Kissinger’s belief in a rules-based order managed by great powers acting …

In recent days, Trump’s attacks on the judiciary, his continued denial of the 2020 election results, and the intensifying polarization in U.S. politics could be interpreted by Kissinger as a weakening of the American strategic core. A fractured domestic landscape, he would argue, erodes Washington’s ability to lead abroad—particularly at a time when global power is shifting toward multipolarity with China, Russia, and regional blocs gaining influence. Kissinger would likely call for a restoration of institutional …

Zbigniew Brzezinski, on the other hand, known for his emphasis on ideological struggle and the psychological aspects of power, would focus more on the long-term effects of Trump’s populism and the deterioration of democratic norms. Brzezinski, a fierce critic of authoritarianism, would likely perceive Trump’s recent moves—including threats against political opponents, economic nationalism, and disdain for liberal democratic values—as symptoms of a deeper crisis of American identity.

For Brzezinski, the strength of the United States rested not only in its military or economic capabilities but in its appeal as a global model of democracy and freedom. The rise of illiberal movements, fueled by Trump’s narrative of grievance and victimization, would be interpreted as undermining that soft power. Brzezinski might also caution that the erosion of trust in democratic institutions plays into the hands of adversaries like Russia and China, who benefit from a weakened and divided America.

Financially, both strategists would likely raise alarms about Trump’s impact on market confidence and institutional credibility. The former president’s recent legal battles—entwined with allegations of fraud and political retribution—have not only shaken investor confidence but have also fueled speculative narratives about the future of American governance. Kissinger might see this as a strategic vulnerability, opening the door for rival powers to exploit uncertainty. Brzezinski would frame it as part of a wider wa…

What unites their likely perspectives is the recognition that American leadership is at risk—not just because of external threats, but due to internal decay. While Kissinger would advocate for a pragmatic recalibration of power and diplomacy, Brzezinski would stress the moral and ideological renewal of the American experiment. Both would probably agree that the Trump phenomenon is not merely a political aberration, but a signal of structural vulnerabilities within the U.S. political and economic system.

Moreover, both would emphasize the need for international coalition-building as a means to preserve global order. Trump’s unilateralism and transactional approach to foreign policy—while appealing to some—would run counter to their shared belief in strategic alliances. NATO, the United Nations, and other multilateral institutions, though imperfect, were pillars of the post-World War II global architecture that both men championed in different ways. Their neglect or devaluation, they might argue, signals a dan…

In conclusion, imagining how Kissinger and Brzezinski would respond to the current Trump-induced chaos is more than academic speculation—it’s a reminder of the intellectual rigor and historical perspective needed to navigate today’s volatility. Their differing philosophies converge on a common concern: that America’s role in the world is being reshaped, not by grand strategy, but by reactive politics and personal ambition. As the nation approaches another pivotal election cycle, their legacies call for a return to strategic thinking, principled leadership, and a renewed commitment to both democratic resilience and global responsibility.