Test your knowledge on Trump’s first year back in the White House

A mock election scenario is now unfolding across political science classrooms and think tanks nationwide, as analysts contemplate what Donald Trump’s first year back in the White House might look like if he were to win the 2024 presidential election.

The exercise, which has gained traction among policy experts and academics, examines potential executive actions, legislative priorities, and international relations moves that could define a second Trump presidency. Political scientists note that such forecasting, while speculative, serves as a valuable educational tool for understanding the American political system and policy implications.

“These simulations help us understand the practical applications of constitutional powers and institutional constraints,” explains Dr. Eleanor Simmons, professor of political science at Georgetown University. “Regardless of political affiliation, analyzing potential presidential actions provides students with critical thinking opportunities about governance structures.”

The hypothetical scenarios being discussed cover a range of policy areas that Trump has emphasized in campaign speeches and interviews. Among the most frequently analyzed are immigration enforcement changes, tariff implementations, and modifications to administrative state operations.

Some universities are conducting full-semester courses on presidential transition scenarios, examining historical precedents from previous administrations returning to power after an absence, such as Grover Cleveland in the 19th century and more recently, Richard Nixon’s 1968 comeback eight years after his first presidential bid.

“What makes these exercises particularly interesting is considering how a president might govern differently in a non-consecutive second term,” notes Martin Lowenstein, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “There’s historical evidence suggesting presidents often enter a second term with different priorities and governing approaches than their first.”

Political economists participating in these scenarios are particularly focused on potential market reactions to policy shifts. Wall Street firms have quietly developed their own models for portfolio management based on various election outcomes, though most emphasize that markets typically adjust to political changes regardless of which party holds power.

The exercise extends beyond domestic policy. International relations departments are studying potential diplomatic realignments, treaty negotiations, and alliance structures under different administration scenarios. Some diplomatic corps members have reportedly conducted their own unofficial assessments of how bilateral relationships might evolve under various electoral outcomes.

Media coverage of these academic exercises has been mixed, with some outlets portraying them as practical educational tools while others view them as politically motivated. Education experts maintain that such simulations serve legitimate pedagogical purposes when conducted with academic rigor.

“We run similar exercises for all potential administrations,” confirms Dr. James Harrington, dean of public policy at American University. “During election cycles, it’s standard practice to examine platforms, promises, and historical records to project governance models. These are analytical exercises, not political endorsements.”

Constitutional scholars involved in these mock scenarios emphasize the importance of understanding separation of powers regardless of who occupies the White House. They note that presidential ambitions often meet institutional resistance from Congress, courts, and bureaucratic structures designed to distribute governing authority.

Public opinion researchers have found that voters across the political spectrum express interest in understanding potential governance outcomes, though their expectations often reflect partisan divides. Focus groups reveal that citizens appreciate detailed analysis of policy implications over horse-race election coverage.

Historians participating in these exercises remind participants that predictive political models have limitations. “Presidential administrations rarely follow precise scripts,” explains presidential historian Dr. Caroline Wu. “External events—economic shocks, international crises, natural disasters—often dictate presidential agendas more than campaign promises.”

As the actual election approaches, these academic exercises are expected to intensify, with more institutions developing comprehensive models for various electoral outcomes. Education leaders emphasize that such intellectual exercises represent democracy’s analytical tradition rather than political advocacy.

Whether these mock scenarios accurately predict what would happen in a potential second Trump term remains to be seen, but they continue to provide valuable frameworks for understanding American governance, institutional resilience, and policy formation in an increasingly complex political landscape.