I was 15 when Trump descended the gilded escalator and announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for President, 16 when he defeated Hillary Clinton and a few weeks shy of 17 when he was inaugurated. When his term officially ended Jan. 20, I was on the cusp of turning 21. 

Late adolescence is usually a time of profound tumult and transition. In my case – and the case of millions of similar-aged Americans – we underwent this time of upheaval in an all-consuming political vortex. 

Like most of those within my social circle, I dismissed the Trump candidacy in 2015 as a bad joke. Even as Trump started to clear the Republican primaries, it seemed impossible to me that the same country that resoundingly elected, and re-elected, Barack Obama – a disciplined, cerebral and thoughtful former professor  – would swing so far as to elect his antithesis immediately after. 

My confidence in Trump’s fall increased further after the release of the Access Hollywood tapes, when elected Republicans began to distance themselves from their presidential nominee. If even Republican lawmakers were deciding that Trump was beyond the pale, surely at least some significant part of their rank and file would concur. Trump’s victory on Election Day 2016 came as a shock that never fully wore off throughout the ensuing Trump presidency.     

The last four years of the Trump presidency has left an indelible mark on American politics. Journalists and commentators have battled over this presidency’s meaning since Trump was declared the victor in November 2016, and historians will surely take up the debate for decades to come. The meaning of almost every aspect of it is disputed. Without a doubt, it has been a unique presidency. 

Before the Trump presidency, I can remember a few incidents of contemporary American politics becoming common discussion for a few days at a time. The end of the general election in 2012, the Bin Laden raid and the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell vs. Hodges are all primary examples of this pattern. Politics would crash in to become a conversation subject on everyone’s mind for a few days and then invariably retreat. With Trump, that tide never seemed to recede. 

Even trying to recollect all the news of the last four years is difficult. There always seemed to be another scandal or controversy that the media was scrambling to cover. To do so, they had to abandon yesterday’s scandal. Each of these abandoned scandals was significant enough that it would have consumed the media and the White Houses for weeks and months during any other presidency.  

The Trump presidency has contributed to the detrimental colonization by politics of the rest of our society. Under previous presidents, politics had intruded into other spheres, but it was more selective. During the Trump presidency, politics simmered far closer to the surface in every conversation than before. Celebrities became more political, and lawmakers became celebrities. The United States’ self-sorting into political tribes has continued unabated. Even within families, some studies suggest there were more ruptures due to politics than previously. 

The first lesson the Trump presidency would teach me  – and one that would be repeated throughout the next four years – started to sink in the days and weeks following Election Day. Americans profoundly disagreed over what the core values of the United States should be. We are not just caught in a debate about balancing competing priorities or what policies would best reflect our values. Instead, Americans have radically different views about what those core values are. Even when we use the same language, Republican and Democrat stalwarts have radically different visions of concepts like equality.  

After the Trump presidency, it is startling how much has changed yet remained the same. The Trump presidency was more the convergence and glorification of a number of trends in American politics than the development of anything new. 

We are more bitterly divided than we were even during the Obama Presidency, which was hardly an idyllic era of bipartisanship, but partisanship has been escalating since the Reagan presidency. 

The Republican Party radicalized, but those who witnessed Newt Gringrich’s Republican Revolution and the Tea Party would argue that it is nothing new. However, it is hard to find a parallel in American history for Trump’s cult of personality.

Tax cuts and hardline conservative judges are not new Republican priorities. However, Sen. McConnell’s (R-Ky.) willingness to toss aside long-held norms and contort himself and his caucus into knots to seat Trump’s nominees on the Supreme Court is unusual. 

The United States has faced momentous challenges before and has botched them. Still, it would be rare to find a historical parallel to the Trump administration’s early response to COVID-19 when the federal government largely abdicated responsibility, and the states were bidding against each other on the open market for PPE.

Though this chaotic presidency was less than an ideal background in which to experience late adolescence, I worry more about those a few years younger whose formative presidential experience has been Trump, in the same way, mine was President Obama. 

The Obama Administration was no idyll. However, Obama understood the multifaceted role of the presidency better than Trump. For one particularly vivid example, look at how President Obama comforted the nation after the horrific Sandy Hook school shooting or after the Charleston Church shooting and compare it to the dearth of public mourning under Trump during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Ultimately, while the end of the Trump presidency has lessened the pit of anxiety, it has not faded away completely. American politics remain too tumultuous, and America’s institutions have revealed themselves to be too vulnerable for that to be possible. And we still have to deal with the consequences of Trump’s presidency: a surge in right-wing domestic terrorism, a radicalized Republican Party and a governmental response to a devastating pandemic that has been haphazard, faltering and scattershot.  

Yet, the Trump presidency has also spurred activism at levels unprecedented in recent American history. Millions of Americans have become more involved with the political process. In particular, the youth activists have been inspirational. From the survivors of the Parkland shooting in 2018 organizing and leading the March for Our Lives to the youth-led Sunrise Movement, to the Swedish activist Greta Thunberg crusading against apathy towards climate change, to protesting against racial injustice and police brutality, young people have been stepping up. 

It was fitting then that it was Biden’s youthful Inaugural poet, Amanda Gorman, who delivered a hopeful analysis on the impact of the Trump Presidency saying, “…even as we grieved we grew. That even as we hurt we hoped. That even as we tired we tried.”

Kehinde Wiley, the painter of Barack Obama’s portrait, is based in New York City. Wiley is best known for his portraits of Michael Jackson as King Philip II and Ice T as Napoleon.   

Wiley features the former president seated in a chair leaning forward and surrounded by greenery and flowers.

President Obama’s choice to use Wiley as his painter was in part due to the shared experiences the men have. After the unveiling, Obama spoke about how he and Wiley were both raised by American mothers and had absent African fathers.

Amy Sherald, the artist who depicted Michelle Obama, is a black woman based in Baltimore. Sherald’s most famous accomplishment prior to this portrait was the fact that she won the National Portrait Gallery Outwin Boochever Portrait Competition in 2016. The portrait of Michelle Obama is regarded as Sherald’s “big break.”

“She came in and she looked at Barack and she said, ‘Well, Mr. President, I’m really excited to be here and I know I’m being considered for both portraits, but Mrs. Obama,’ – she physically turned to me, and she said, ‘I’m really hoping that you and I can work together,’” said the former first lady in reference to choosing Sherald.  

Sherald’s eagerness to paint Obama contributed to her being chosen as the artist. Sherald says that she is relieved she was chosen because now she can pay back her student loans.

The significance of these portraits is that Wiley and Sherald are the first African Americans to paint official portraits of the first couple for the National Portrait Gallery.

“Being the first African American painter to paint the first African American president, it doesn’t get any better than that,” said Wiley.

Sherald described her portrait of Michelle Obama as “an archetype that a lot of women can relate to — no matter shape, size, race or color. We see our best selves in her.”

Photos of portraits courtesy of The New York Times.

There were mixed public reactions to the paintings due to their complete contrast with other presidential portraits. These paintings usually focus on presidents in their official capacity. With the exceptions of John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton, presidential portraits usually show presidents standing tall in an office or library.   

The Obamas’ portraits stray from conventional portraits because of the use of grayscale and naturalistic scenery. The unconventional portraits led many to wonder what the purpose of such paintings was.  

Critics questioned why, in Michelle Obama’s portrait, her skin color was painted gray. This stylistic decision actually aligns with Sherald’s other works, which are painted primarily in grayscale.  

“Gray makes the paintings work. But it’s also a way for me to subversively comment about race without feeling as though I’m excluding the viewer,” Sherald said.

President Obama’s portrait is also unconventional as it shows him seated around greenery, unlike any other presidential portrait.  

Wiley’s artistic approach often centers around a naturalistic interpretation to show how African American males are represented in culture.

“[It] challenges our conventional views of power and privilege,” Obama said.

Positive critics agree that the portraits portray, “intelligence, directness, and — perhaps more than anything else — cool.”

These portraits provide a fresh air of creativity and inspiration. They show the Obamas’ willingness to take risks and present themselves in an artistic fashion. The portraits also show that art can be used to convey important messages. Michelle Obama hopes that these portraits will be inspirational.

“Young people, particularly girls and girls of color, in future years they will come to this place and see someone who looks like them hanging on the walls of this incredible institution,” she said.

President Obama’s portrait will be displayed in the “American Presidents” exhibit, Michelle Obama’s portrait will be displayed elsewhere in the museum.

Cover photo courtesy of National Public Radio (NPR).

Landmark policies and actions Obama supported and created include the Syrian red line, the support of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine problem and diplomatic agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris Climate Agreement. Trump’s major foreign policy moves include the proliferation of military and nuclear arsenals, support of a single-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict and general isolationism.

In Syria, Obama famously declared that the U.S. would enforce a “red line” with regard to chemical weapons in Syria. He said that if Bashar Assad, Syria’s President, used chemical weapons, the U.S. would respond with military action. The red line was a hardline threat to Syria, but when Assad used chemical weapons on his rebel forces, the U.S. did not respond with swift military action.

At the end of his presidency, Obama reiterated the need for a peaceful solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict in which both states maintain peace and claims to their land. Trump is open to supporting a one-state solution to the conflict. In support of this position, Trump has advocated moving the U.S. Embassy from Israel to Jerusalem.

Further, Obama was supportive of civilian control of the military. His cabinet was largely diplomats, political scientists and academics. In contrast, Trump has filled his cabinet with current and former military personnel. This move effectively increased the power and funding of the military.

Trump has promoted isolationist policies such as withdrawing from international agreements, like the Paris Climate Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Both moves were controversial, and Trump used them to emphasize his nationalist agenda that attempts to protect American jobs and people by avoiding “unfair” international deals.

Generally, Trump is very nationalistic and isolationist, pushing a “protect America” agenda. He focuses on internal policy in order to promote national strength and increase international power. Obama, on the other hand, was diplomatic and more in favor of working with other nations on peaceful ground. Trump couples his domestic focus with a competitive outlook on foreign affairs and international cooperation.

The policies are similar on the issues of decreasing North Korean aggression, combatting China in the South China Sea and responding to countries threatening nuclear war.

Additionally, Trump and Obama both resist China’s increasing status as a world power and specifically oppose Chinese action in the South China Sea. China has claimed power and ignored agreed to restrictions in the area. It has even created man-made islands for artillery bases. Trump is more vocal about his opposition to China. However, his foreign policy approach to China does not differ significantly from Obama’s.

Finally, both Trump and Obama refuse to negotiate or talk with countries that threaten nuclear war. For instance, both presidents present a hardline to North Korea that essentially states that North Korea must give up its nuclear arsenal before the U.S. will open talks. Obama favored economic sanctions and international cooperation in order to deter North Korea, and Trump has favored increasing the U.S. nuclear arsenal for deterrence. Trump used more vitriolic and aggressive language in reference to North Korea, yet he, again, has not altered the U.S.’s fundamental approach to the situation.

Photo Courtesy of ABC News.

According to the whitehouse.gov transcript of the speech, Trump cited “the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country” as his rationale for leaving. These include the ceasing of coal production and the reduction of paper manufacturing and cement, iron and steel production. He claims these are restrictions imposed more harshly on the U.S. than other countries in the agreement.

Since this announcement, there have been many conflicting reports on whether Trump intends to go through with this withdrawal, though the latest reports say that he does. Furthermore, arguments have been ongoing as to whether leaving the Paris Climate Accord is really as wise a move for U.S. interests as Trump claims it to be. Those who say that it is do so on several grounds.

A major argument put forward by both the Washington Post and the Heritage Foundation for leaving the Accord has to do with the role of the Chinese in the agreement. Though opponents of leaving the agreement have argued that the U.S. will cede leadership on climate issues to China, Beijing has repeatedly falsified its data regarding coal consumption and pollution. The country’s poor air quality, which is unrelated to CO2 emissions, means that it is difficult to compare the positions of the U.S. and China, according to the articles.

Another argument has to do with the U.S. function as a world power. In order to maintain our status. as such, proponents of withdrawing from the agreement argue that it is important to show our willingness to protect our own interests.

Beyond international political concerns, Trump’s desire is to repeal Obama-era restrictions on CO2 emissions. He wants to repeal the Clean Power Plan, which was instated under President Obama. This is objectionable to environmental groups. If the U.S. is still a member of the Paris Climate Accord, then these groups will be able to sue on that basis.

Another domestic reason for withdrawal from the Accord is that Trump has already basically done so anyway by repealing these environmental restrictions. Though this is possible under the Paris Climate Accord, it will be more sustainable if we are no longer a part of the agreement so that future presidents cannot use it as a basis for reinstating them.

Arguments for withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord are related to the U.S. status as a world power and to Trump’s policies as already enacted.

Photo Courtesy of National Geographic.