Donald Trump returned to power promising strength, order and an “America First” revolution that would reshape the world.

But beneath the theatrical displays of dominance, one analyst sees an administration staggering toward collapse—undermined by the very greed, chaos and corruption that helped define it.

Salon executive editor Andrew O’Hehir delivered that blistering verdict Sunday, arguing that Trump’s foreign-policy ambitions are entering what he called their “decadent, desperate end stage.”

The collapse, O’Hehir contends, contains one deeply ironic twist: The administration’s ideological extremists may be defeated not by institutional courage or organized resistance, but by the self-interest of the people surrounding them.

“We should be grateful for the epic and reckless corruption of this administration,” O’Hehir wrote, arguing that attempts to reshape America and the world into what he called a “white-supremacist wonderland” are repeatedly sabotaged by enormous levels of graft.

It is an opinion—not a factual determination that Trump’s agenda will inevitably collapse. But it offers a dramatic explanation for the widening gap between the administration’s sweeping promises and its unstable results.

O’Hehir places White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller at the ideological center of that project. Miller has been one of the administration’s most influential advocates for restrictive immigration policies and a wider international realignment toward nationalist governments.

Unlike officials accused of pursuing money, prestige or personal deals, Miller is portrayed in the column as a genuine believer. O’Hehir argues that his corruption is “moral rather than financial,” using an extreme historical comparison to emphasize the severity of his criticism.

But true believers need functioning institutions, disciplined allies and consistent policies to transform ideology into a lasting global order.

That is where O’Hehir believes Trumpism begins destroying itself.

The administration’s foreign policy has moved rapidly between threatened conflicts, escalating trade disputes, transactional alliances and sudden diplomatic announcements. Policies presented as historic achievements have frequently generated new questions about their costs, details and long-term consequences.

Trump campaigned as an opponent of endless war. Yet his second administration has deepened U.S. involvement in overseas conflict. He promised to use American power for American interests, but critics argue that public resources are increasingly being redirected toward ideologically aligned governments and organizations abroad.

The contradiction, according to the Salon commentary, is becoming impossible to conceal.

Trump’s version of “America First” was sold to voters as a rejection of the foreign-policy establishment. O’Hehir argues that it has instead produced a system built on raw cynicism, in which principles such as democracy and universal human rights are discarded whenever they interfere with political advantage.

That shift has real consequences.

The administration has expanded restrictions on international assistance involving diversity initiatives and LGBTQ+ rights, potentially affecting billions of dollars in foreign aid. Humanitarian organizations have warned that the policy could damage health programs and vulnerable communities around the world. The administration maintains that American funding should not promote ideological programs it opposes.

At home, a detailed KFF policy tracker has documented executive actions affecting LGBTQ+ health protections, data collection and access to federally supported services.

O’Hehir argues that such policies reveal the administration’s deeper ideological project. Yet he also predicts that Trump’s declining political strength and the competing personal interests inside his movement will prevent that project from becoming a stable legacy.

His forecast rests heavily on the approaching midterm elections.

Trump’s popularity has been damaged by unpopular wars, economic uncertainty and repeated internal controversies, according to the columnist. If Republicans suffer major losses, the president could enter the final phase of his term weakened and increasingly unable to push transformative legislation through Congress.

That possibility, O’Hehir writes, has launched a frantic search inside MAGA for anything that can be marketed to loyal supporters as a victory—even if the achievement is small, symbolic or disconnected from Trump’s original promises.

The result is an administration trapped between spectacle and reality.

Its ideologues want a permanent political transformation. Its opportunists want money, influence and protection. Its president wants visible victories and personal loyalty. Those objectives can temporarily coexist—but they cannot always produce coherent government.

O’Hehir finds dark comedy in that collision, but he stresses that the consequences are not amusing. Human lives and billions in public resources are caught inside policies driven by ideology, political survival and personal ambition.

The central question is no longer whether Trump can continue generating chaos.

It is whether his movement can survive the chaos it created.

O’Hehir’s answer is devastating: The machine built to remake the world may ultimately collapse because everyone inside it is trying to take something for themselves.