The empire without disguise.

Donald Trump speaks like an emperor, acts like a warlord, and presents himself as if he owns the world. At first glance, it seems like delusion. But, when observed in the light of contemporary geopolitics, his behavior reveals the political form assumed by a declining empire that can no longer lead through consensus and begins to govern through open coercion.

The emperor who loudly proclaims what the empire has always done - Donald Trump does not govern—and never has governed—like a liberal postwar president. He acts like a late-stage, personalistic, aggressive, and hierarchical sovereign. His discourse does not seek to persuade, but to intimidate. He does not build consensus; he demands submission. This posture, often treated as a psychological deviation or individual delusion, is, in reality, functional to an imperial system that can no longer sustain its hegemony through symbolic means.

For decades, the United States wielded global power through multilateral institutions, treaties, international organizations, and a civilizing rhetoric that presented force as the exception. Coups, wars, blockades, and sanctions always existed, but they were portrayed as necessary deviations in the name of freedom. Trump breaks with this charade. He says aloud what was previously said in technical, legal, or diplomatic language.

By threatening allies, humiliating heads of state, suggesting territorial annexations, or treating countries as negotiable assets, Trump is not delusional. He is updating the language of empire for a world in which American hegemony is no longer spontaneously accepted. The emperor is not a systemic error. He is a historical necessity when consensus collapses.

From alliance to vassalage: intra-Western coercion Trumpism inaugurates an unprecedented rupture within the Western bloc itself. Canada, Denmark, and the European Union cease to be treated as strategic partners and are instead pressured as subordinates. Greenland, an autonomous territory under Danish sovereignty, has become a symbol of this mutation. When Trump suggested "buying" the island, the episode was treated as folklore, but the message was clear: for the empire in crisis, strategic territories are not nations; they are geopolitical assets.

The European Union emerges as a structural obstacle. Too large to be ignored, too weak to impose itself militarily, and too dependent on NATO to resist coercion. Trumpism replaces diplomacy with permanent constraint, economic blackmail, and political humiliation. This is not a formal war, but continuous coercion.

The Arctic: When the center of the world shifts. Trump's obsession with Canada and Greenland is only fully explained when one observes the Arctic. The accelerated melting of ice has transformed the region into one of the main axes of global competition in the 21st century. New maritime routes, vast reserves of oil, gas, and strategic minerals, as well as absolute military advantages, have repositioned the Arctic on the geopolitical chessboard.

In this scenario, the United States arrived late. Russia has consolidated its military and logistical presence, controls the Northern Sea Route, and possesses the world's largest fleet of icebreakers. China, even without an Arctic tradition, is investing aggressively in the region as part of its long-term strategy.

Trump reacts to this delay with intimidation, territorial pressure, and open threats. Greenland emerges as a key piece; Canada, as a corridor and obstacle. This is not about preparing for an immediate war, but about a crude strategic repositioning, outside of multilateral rules. When the empire can no longer organize the world, it tries to paralyze it through threats.

The warlord without a throne - Donald Trump cannot be re-elected, according to US electoral law. But this does not weaken the phenomenon. On the contrary, it clarifies it. Trumpism does not depend on Trump's formal presence in power. He has already fulfilled his historical function: to break the liberal veneer, normalize open coercion, and shift the axis of politics towards culture war and permanent intimidation.

Trumpism has become a method, a language, and an informal doctrine. It operates through political networks, captured parties, international alliances, and digital platforms. It is a stateless regime, a power that dispenses with the office. The contemporary warlord does not govern territories. He keeps them all under a permanent calculation of risk.

From the Arctic to Latin America: the Brazilian mirror - It is at this point that the undisguised empire finds its clearest reflection in Brazil. Here, coercion does not present itself with fleets on the horizon, but with cultural warfare, disinformation, economic pressure, and internal alliances with the far-right. The country is not seen as a full ally, but as a functional territory: a market, a supplier of commodities, and a geopolitical frontier to be contained.

In October, Brazil will go to the polls for a decisive presidential election. This is no conventional contest. At stake are two antagonistic historical projects. On one side, the Trumpist project, even without Trump in power in the United States: authoritarian, subservient, hostile to national sovereignty, and willing to erode democracy to ensure external alignment. On the other, the Lulaist project, led by Lula, who may be re-elected and represents sovereignty, an active foreign policy, regional integration, and democracy as a strategic value.

You don't vote for Trump. You vote for or against Trumpism.

When the empire drops the disguise: a “very difficult” choice. Trump may leave the institutional scene. Trumpism, however, will not. It has already fulfilled its historical function: to demonstrate that when threatened, empire abandons consensus, relativizes democracy, and governs by force. To demonstrate that allies are vassals, sovereignty is an obstacle, and politics becomes permanent war.

In Brazil, this logic will reach the ballot box in October. This is no ordinary election. It is a historic decision about the country's place in the world.

On the eve of the election that brought Jair Bolsonaro to power in 2018, the newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo published a famous and infamous editorial entitled "A very difficult choice," to justify its support for an authoritarian, anti-political candidate hostile to democracy, under the pretext of avoiding the popular field represented by the Workers' Party (PT).

History has shown what that "difficulty" produced: institutional destruction, external subjugation, attacks on freedoms, flirtation with coups, and an unprecedented democratic crisis.

Now, the choice presents itself again — but this time, without any disguise.

On one side, the Trumpist project: authoritarian, subservient, violent in form and colonial in content, willing to erode Brazilian democracy to align the country with a declining empire.

On the other hand, there was the Lula administration's project: sovereignty, democratic reconstruction, an active foreign policy, regional integration, and the defense of Brazil as an autonomous nation in a multipolar world.

There is nothing "difficult" about this choice.
It was difficult to feign neutrality in the face of authoritarianism.
It was difficult to relativize democracy in the name of the market.
It was difficult to call barbarity pragmatism.

Now, the choice is clear.

When the empire abandons its disguise, ambiguity ceases to be an option.

And history does not absolve those who, once again, pretend not to understand what is at stake.