Trump's Deal-Making Presidency Tests American Norms

President Donald Trump has used the powers of his office to pursue personal and political gain in ways that recall Watergate. That comparison sits heavy. It should.

The pattern is clear enough that multiple newsrooms have named it. Transactionalism defines his second term. He trades official action for advantage. Sometimes the advantage is political. Sometimes it is personal. Both kinds erode trust.

What the reporting shows

Reporters at CNN wrote this week that few things have defined Trump’s second term as much as his transactionalism. They said he has gone to great lengths to wield potential official actions for political and even personal gain in ways simply not seen since at least Watergate. That line is not casual. It is a judgment about scale and frequency, not a single incident.

Other outlets have traced the same thread over months. The Los Angeles Times noted that Trump’s second term showcases a maximalist view of executive authority and limited checks, with conflicts of interest that escalated after he returned to office in January 2025. Reuters marked his first year back by saying he appears increasingly unconstrained, pursuing policies that have deepened divisions in the country. An academic analysis in PSQ found that in his first 100 days of the second term, Trump signed 137 executive orders, including 26 on January 20, dwarfing the 37 Joe Biden issued in his first 100 days.

The New York Times opinion page argued on September 19, 2026 that the agenda he prioritized aimed to shift the executive branch toward patrimonialism, where the state is treated as the leader’s personal asset. It pointed to personal enrichment along with his family, reportedly amounting to several billion dollars, and to attempts to extract nearly $1.8 billion from taxpayers through a dubious legal settlement. CNN reported in May 2026 that the Justice Department declared a forever prohibition on IRS audits concerning past tax matters involving Trump and his family as part of a settlement linked to a $10 billion lawsuit he filed over leaked tax returns. That settlement also included a $1.776 billion fund for people who allege they were victims of politically motivated justice under the Biden administration.

Wikipedia’s page on corruption allegations during the second Trump presidency says historians, legal experts, and federal judges have called the conflicts of interest and self-enrichment unrivaled in American history. It notes that by August 2025, the Office of Government Ethics reported 690 stock transactions since he took office, including purchases of $100 million in bonds from local authorities, gas districts, and major corporations. It also cites a New Yorker piece estimating Trump had gained over $3 billion from the presidency by mid-2025.

I do not need to endorse every number to feel the shape of the problem. The point is not a ledger. It is the message sent when official power and private gain move in the same direction, again and again.

Why this lands with people

Most Americans do not parse executive orders. They do not track stock filings. They notice when the rules seem to bend for one person. They notice when a settlement creates a billion-dollar fund while the Justice Department bars audits of the president’s past taxes. They notice when a president sues his own government for billions and then settles on terms that shield him.

That is why the Watergate comparison stings. It is not about a single break-in or a single cover-up. It is about the idea that the office can be used as a tool for the person in it. That idea corrodes faith in fairness. It makes people wonder whether the game is fixed.

There is a difference between a president who pushes hard for policy and a president who pushes hard for himself. Every administration uses leverage. That is how governing works. But leverage aimed at personal profit or at punishing critics crosses a line most people expect to hold.

I keep returning to the word ordinary. Ordinary people pay taxes. They follow rules. They do not get to bar their own audits. They do not get to file billion-dollar suits against the government and then shape the settlement. When they see that, they do not need a lecture on separation of powers to feel something is off. They feel it in their bones.

What remains unresolved

Historians will argue about whether this is truly without precedent since Watergate. Some will say other scandals were worse in different ways. Others will say the scale here is new. That debate matters for the history books. It does not change the daily effect on trust.

What is documented is the pattern. Transactionalism. Executive orders used at a pace that dwarfs recent presidencies. Conflicts of interest that escalated in the second term. Stock trades in companies affected by presidential decisions. A Justice Department that pursues political enemies and protects allies. A settlement that bars IRS audits of the president while creating a large fund for his supporters.

What is not known is where this ends. There are still courts. There are still reporters. There are still voters. But the guardrails look thinner than they did before 2025. That is the quiet worry. Not panic. Just the sense that norms are being tested in real time, with real consequences for how people view their government.

I do not write this to cheer or to doom. I write it because the facts, as reported, point in one direction. The presidency is being used in ways that blur public duty and private gain. That blur is the story. It is the part that ordinary people feel first, and the part that will shape whether trust can be rebuilt.