Le Monde: Trump is beginning to realize his inevitable end
Journalist Gilles Paris argues that US President Donald Trump’s insistence on putting his name everywhere is not just a showmanship, but a sign of a deeper concern about the demise of influence and the imminent end of his political role.
Paris wrote in Le Monde newspaper that the obsession with putting his name everywhere has accompanied Trump throughout his career, from changing the names of symbolic institutions in Washington, such as the United States Institute of Peace and the Kennedy Center, to announcing warships bearing his name, to the idea of minting a coin on his face.
Trump is turning the presidency into an integrated brand project, continuing a long journey of self-promotion, in a behavior that no longer arouses little objection in Washington due to the erosion of the concept of conflict of interest, in a warning to Trump’s multibillion-dollar family empire since his re-election, and to his government team that includes an unprecedented number of wealthy, at a time when Americans are suffering from living pressures.
But Paris goes beyond explaining it with narcissism and greed alone, posing the idea of the president’s inevitable end, resulting from constitutional restrictions barring a third term, and the possibility that Trump will become a “lame duck” after the 2026 midterm elections.
The succession struggle within the conservative camp actually began before the end of the term, as evidenced by the sharp divisions in conservative groupings and resignations within influential thinktanks.
The article places the US case in an international context, highlighting the difference between the rotation of power in Washington and the continuity of governance in Moscow and Beijing, where leaders such as Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping deal with successive US presidents.
The danger lies not only in the names on the buildings, but also in the profound shifts that affect foreign policy and the US state itself, from the erosion of traditional consensus to the preference for loyalty over efficiency, and the weakening of the diplomatic apparatus.
In conclusion, Paris asks a question that is both cynical and anxious.
Will it be easier to remove Trump’s name from Washington’s façades, or to return American politics to its traditional foundations?
