In 2025, global politics was defined by volatility, resilient strongmen, and unexpected twists. From Washington and Jerusalem to Damascus, Tokyo, and Kathmandu, the year was less about clear ideology and more about shifts in power — as leaders weathered crises, outsiders gained influence, and public anger reshaped political landscapes.
Trump 2.0: The ‘dramatic political’ comeback
Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025 proved to be the defining political development of the year, ending four years of Democratic rule and ushering in a sharp recalibration of American power at home and abroad.
Described by multiple media outlets as a “dramatic political comeback,” Trump’s victory was fueled by voter frustration over inflation, migration pressures and disillusionment with the Biden administration’s handling of foreign conflicts.
Campaigning on an “America First reset,” Trump tapped deep economic anxieties that reshaped the electoral map across key battleground states.
Once back in office, Trump wasted little time consolidating authority.
Loyalists were placed across national security agencies, sweeping immigration restrictions were enacted, and Biden-era climate and regulatory policies were rapidly dismantled. Several long-standing foreign aid commitments were suspended within weeks, sending shockwaves through European capitals.
Trump 2.0, as allies and critics now describe it, was Trump 1.0 unleashed, according to a _New York Time_s report.
In both pageantry and policy, Trump’s second term marked a decisive expansion of presidential power.
The gold trim in the Oval Office, the demolition of the East Wing to be replaced by a massive ballroom, the plastering of his name and face on government buildings and now even the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the designation of his own birthday as a free-admission holiday at national parks — it all speaks to a personal aggrandizement and accumulation of power with meager resistance from Congress or the Supreme Court, reported NYT.
Nearly 250 years after American colonists rejected monarchical rule, the United States appeared closer than at any point in peacetime to a centralised authority shaped by one individual.
Trump reinterpreted constitutional boundaries, dictated terms to private institutions and openly used law enforcement against perceived enemies.
“His second term in many respects represents not simply a break from presidential norms and expectations,” NYT quoted Matthew Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University, as saying. “It’s also a culmination of 75 years in which presidents have reached for more and more power.”
Supporters embraced this concentration of power as a necessary corrective to what they viewed as a bloated, liberal “deep state.”
Critics, however, warned that Trump’s actions were eroding democratic checks and balances and normalising conduct that once shocked Washington. Yet few disputed his dominance of the political system or his ability to impose his will with limited institutional resistance.
Globally, Trump’s return triggered swift geopolitical recalibration. Nato allies prepared for reduced US engagement, Asian partners hedged against American unpredictability, and adversaries such as Russia and China tested Washington’s resolve.
India initially welcomed Trump’s second term, but relations cooled amid the imposition of 50 per cent tariffs and political disagreements over the India–Pakistan ceasefire.
Despite deep strategic ties, the partnership now faces structural challenges, with analysts warning that New Delhi’s commitment to equidistance risks diminishing its influence in an increasingly transactional global order.
As 2025 draws to a close, Trump 2.0 stands as a year-defining force. Whether viewed as an agent of renewal or a destabilising disruptor, Trump’s comeback reshaped Washington’s balance of power and reasserted the United States as the world’s most disruptive political actor — setting the tone for global diplomacy well beyond the year itself.
Takaichi becomes Japan’s first female PM
Sanae Takaichi made history in November, winning Japan’s parliamentary vote to become the nation’s first female prime minister. Her victory was met with enthusiasm in domestic stock markets. Takaichi secured 237 votes in the first round in the 465-seat Lower House, eliminating the need for a runoff, according to public broadcaster NHK.
Her election followed agreement between the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and the Japan Innovation Party to form a coalition government. Takaichi succeeded Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, ending a three-month political deadlock following the Liberal Democratic Party’s poor showing in the July elections.
Ishiba, who served only one year, resigned along with his Cabinet, clearing the way for his successor.
“Political stability is essential right now,” Takaichi said at signing ceremony with JIP leader and Osaka Governor Hirofumi Yoshimura. “Without stability, we cannot push measures for a strong economy or diplomacy,” she added.
Takaichi is among Japanese politicians who have opposed measures for women’s advancement. She supports male-only succession in the imperial family, opposes same-sex marriage, and is against allowing married couples to have separate surnames, according to the Associated Press.
A protege of the late former prime minister Shinzo Abe, Takaichi is expected to follow his policies, including strengthening the military and economy and revising Japan’s pacifist constitution.
Takaichi, who admires Britain’s first female prime minister Margaret Thatcher and calls herself Japan’s “Iron Lady,” has drawn criticism for her hardline conservative views. Opponents, including former premier Kishida, have labeled her “Taliban Takaichi.”
She is a wartime history revisionist, takes a hawkish stance on China, and frequently visits the Yasukuni Shrine, a symbol of militarism.
Takaichi recently “rattled” China through her assertive foreign policy, primarily her statement in November 2025 that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could constitute an “existential crisis” for Japan, potentially triggering a military response. This comment broke Japan’s long-standing strategic ambiguity on the Taiwan issue and led to a diplomatic crisis.
China, which considers Taiwan a renegade province, responded furiously, demanding Takaichi retract her remarks and accusing Japan of interfering in its internal affairs. The Chinese foreign minister described the comments as “shocking” and a crossing of a “red line”.
Netanyahu steadies political ship through wars
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu survived what many analysts described as one of the most politically perilous periods of his career, steering the country through a sprawling, multi-theatre conflict that officials increasingly described as a seven-front war in 2025. Amid Gaza ceasefire negotiations, sustained domestic protests and a fractured coalition, Netanyahu maintained firm control over Israel’s security apparatus and political narrative.
According to AFP, Netanyahu weathered public anger and ongoing investigations by invoking wartime unity and relying on diplomatic manoeuvring to remain in power.
The central battlefield remained Gaza, where Israel’s war with Hamas continued into 2025 before an active ceasefire took hold by October. Fighting also persisted closer to home. In the West Bank, Israeli forces conducted near-daily operations against Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other armed factions, as violence remained largely unabated throughout the year.
To the north, tensions with Hezbollah in Lebanon remained high. Although a ceasefire brokered in late 2024 prevented full-scale war, cross-border incidents and Israeli strikes continued into late 2025, underscoring the fragility of the truce, according to AFP. Israeli officials repeatedly warned that the northern front could flare again at any time.
The conflict also expanded beyond Israel’s immediate borders. In June 2025, Israel and Iran engaged in their most direct confrontation to date, exchanging missile and air strikes targeting military infrastructure and sensitive nuclear-linked facilities before a ceasefire was reached, Reuters reported.
In Syria, Israel continued regular airstrikes throughout 2025 against Iranian-linked targets and weapons routes, part of its long-running effort to curb Tehran’s regional influence, according to Al Jazeera.
Farther afield, Yemen emerged as another front, with Houthi rebels launching missiles and drones at Israel while disrupting shipping in the Red Sea. Israel responded with airstrikes on Houthi targets beginning in mid-2025. Iranian-aligned militias in Iraq carried out sporadic attacks earlier in the wider conflict, though those largely tapered off by early 2025.
That Netanyahu emerged politically intact from this prolonged, multi-front confrontation surprised many observers.
When Hamas carried out the deadliest attack in Israel’s history on October 7, 2023 — killing 1,200 people and kidnapping 251 — few analysts believed Netanyahu would still be in office two years later. Historically, Israeli leaders have paid a steep political price for such failures; Golda Meir resigned after the 1973 war.
Netanyahu, however, refused to accept responsibility, blamed the military and intelligence services, blocked a formal inquiry and pressed on with the war despite mounting domestic fatigue and international pressure.
Even as US President Donald Trump later praised him while addressing the Knesset after helping broker a ceasefire, Netanyahu was already focused on his next battle: the ballot box.
Israel is due to hold elections in October 2026, though an early vote remains possible. Netanyahu has vowed to run again and is seeking to recast the seven-front conflict as a historic victory, while portraying critics as enemies from within.
At the same time, he has renewed efforts to weaken judicial independence and tighten political control over state institutions and the media, according to Foreign Affairs magazine.
The coming election is likely to serve as a referendum on Netanyahu’s rule, as Israeli elections have since his return to power in 2009. Despite trailing in some polls, he retains a large and loyal base, while his opponents remain divided. Even without an outright victory, Netanyahu could still block the formation of a stable alternative government — allowing him to retain influence, as he has in the past, added the report.
Al Sharaa mainstreams Syria
Since the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December 2024, Syrian interim president Ahmed al-Sharaa has embarked on a campaign to reposition Syria politically, institutionally and diplomatically after decades of isolation.
Sharaa, once the leader of the Islamist rebel coalition that helped topple Assad, has used a mix of state-building measures, diplomatic engagement and institutional restructuring to bring Syria back into the regional and international fold.
Shortly after Assad’s ouster, al-Sharaa was declared transitional president and immediately took steps to dismantle the old regime’s political order: the constitution was suspended, the Ba’ath Party dissolved, and the former military and security apparatus disbanded. A temporary legislative council was created to fill the governance vacuum, according to Reuters.
A key element of Sharaa’s strategy has been institutional transformation. In March 2025, a new transitional government was sworn in with a broader representation of religious and ethnic groups, including Christian and Kurdish figures, signaling an effort to move beyond narrowly factional rule, reported AP.
Domestic political processes have also been launched to embed this transition.
In February 2025, al-Sharaa convened a National Dialogue Conference aimed at charting a path for national unity and reform, including discussions on transitional justice and constitutional change.
On the international front, Sharaa’s government has actively pursued diplomatic normalization. Analysts note that Syria engaged with more international partners in a single year than it did under Assad, moving to rebuild ties with regional powers and attend multilateral forums previously closed to Damascus.
A high-profile address at the United Nations and a historic visit to the White House underscored Syria’s tentative return to international legitimacy.
Al-Sharaa’s visit marked a diplomatic milestone: he became the first Syrian leader to visit the White House since Syria’s independence in 1946.
The Syrian presidency said the talks focused on “bilateral relations between Syria and the United States, ways to strengthen and develop them, and a number of regional and international issues of common interest.”
Trump emerged from the meeting offering unusually warm praise.
“He comes from a very tough place, and he’s a tough guy. I like him,” Aljazeera quoted Trump as saying of the Syrian president. “
“We’ll do everything we can to make Syria successful, because that’s part of the Middle East. We have peace now in the Middle East – the first time that anyone can remember that ever happening,” he added.
At the same time, Trump acknowledged al-Sharaa’s controversial past. “We’ve all had rough pasts,” he said.
The White House meeting built on earlier diplomatic momentum, when Trump announced he would lift crippling US sanctions on Syria and urged al-Sharaa to meet specific conditions aimed at stabilising the country, including normalising relations with Syria’s neighbours — Israel among them — and rebuilding ties with Washington.
Foreign policy shifts such as outreach to Gulf states and renewed engagement with Turkey also helped chip away at Syria’s long-standing pariah status. The new foreign minister has actively participated in diplomatic missions intended to reposition Syria within wider global networks.
Despite these steps, critics and rights groups caution that genuine democratic development remains limited. Amnesty International has acknowledged promising legal reforms and transitional justice efforts, but said deeper institutional and human-rights reforms are still lacking, reported Associated Press.
Syria’s re-entry onto the global stage underscores a shift from isolation toward cautious international engagement, but challenges remain: integrating diverse domestic constituencies, addressing ongoing security issues, and ensuring that political reforms translate into tangible rights and stability for ordinary Syrians.
The uprising that ended Nepal’s government
In September 2025, Nepal plunged into a political crisis after the government imposed a sweeping ban on social media platforms in what critics described as an attempt to silence dissent. Introduced amid economic stagnation and deepening youth frustration, the move triggered mass, youth-led protests across Kathmandu and other cities, with Generation Z at the forefront.
Clashes erupted on September 8 between demonstrators and security forces. Within 48 hours, parliament and multiple government buildings were ablaze, and Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli resigned.
The government lifted the ban on September 9, but unrest continued until the army imposed a nationwide curfew on September 10. By September 22, at least 74 people had been killed and more than 2,100 injured. The upheaval echoed recent youth-driven uprisings in Sri Lanka (2022) and Bangladesh (2024), highlighting the fragility of South Asian democracies and raising broader questions about free speech and digital rights in Asia.
Amid the turmoil, protest leaders rallied behind former chief justice Sushila Karki as their choice for interim prime minister. After consultations with the army, her name was forwarded to the president, and she was sworn in on September 12, becoming Nepal’s first woman head of government.
The crisis was rooted in long-standing economic and political dysfunction. Youth unemployment stood above 20 per cent in 2022–23, among the highest in South Asia, while roughly one-third of GDP came from remittances, underscoring the lack of domestic opportunity. Economic power remained concentrated among a small elite, deepening alienation among younger Nepalis.
Political instability compounded these pressures. Since the abolition of the monarchy in 2008 following years of turmoil, Nepal has cycled through 14 governments under eight prime ministers, with none completing a full term. Since the 2015 constitution, power has rotated among KP Sharma Oli, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, and Sher Bahadur Deuba, all dogged by allegations of corruption and patronage, further eroding public trust.
The immediate trigger was the government’s September 4 suspension of 26 social media platforms, including Facebook, YouTube, WhatsApp and X, citing noncompliance with new registration rules. The ban drew comparisons to China’s model of digital control, but unlike Beijing, Nepal offered no domestic alternatives. The move proved both unpopular and ineffective, as VPN use surged.
Protests escalated rapidly. Thousands of students gathered near Kathmandu’s parliament on September 8. Police responded with tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets and live fire after barricades were breached.
Violence spread nationwide, with government offices, police stations and politicians’ homes attacked. On September 10, the army imposed a nationwide curfew, emerging as the only institution capable of restoring order after the near-collapse of civilian governance.
Karki’s interim administration, sworn in days later, was welcomed by supporters as a break from entrenched corruption, though critics questioned the legality of her selection following the destruction of parliament and her endorsement via an online protest forum. She moved quickly to form a reform-oriented cabinet, establish a judicial commission to investigate the violence, and create a reconstruction fund to rebuild damaged infrastructure.
Within weeks, Karki consolidated her position, retained broad public backing, and began the difficult task of stabilising the country and restoring confidence in Nepal’s battered democratic institutions.
Peru: Presidency collapses amid unrest
Peru closed out 2025 with yet another abrupt change at the top, as Congress voted to remove President Dina Boluarte from office, capping a year marked by political paralysis, public anger and worsening insecurity.
In a late-night session that underscored the volatility of Peru’s politics, lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to oust Boluarte on grounds of “permanent moral incapacity,” a constitutional provision that has become a recurring tool in the country’s revolving-door presidencies. A total of 122 of 130 lawmakers backed her removal, with support spanning much of the political spectrum.
In a televised address after the vote, Boluarte warned that her ouster risked further destabilising Peru’s already fragile democracy. Her presidency, however, had long appeared untenable. Among the world’s most unpopular leaders, she ended her tenure with approval ratings hovering between 2 and 4 percent, battered by corruption scandals, multiple investigations and persistent street protests.
Public anger intensified in 2025 as violent crime surged and gang activity spread, particularly in urban centres. Anti-government demonstrations grew more frequent in recent months, fueled by fears that the state was losing control. Tensions peaked again on the eve of Boluarte’s removal after a shooting at a concert in the capital, Lima, reignited outrage over security failures.
Boluarte’s fall continued a grim pattern for Peru, where presidents have repeatedly been forced from office before completing their terms, reflecting deep institutional weakness and a breakdown of trust between voters and the political class.
With no vice-president in place, Congress leader José Jeri was sworn in as interim president, inheriting a country exhausted by instability and facing the same unresolved challenges that toppled his predecessor.
Bulgaria: Protests topple another government
Bulgaria ended 2025 much as it has spent much of the past decade — in political flux. Earlier this month, Prime Minister Rosen Zhelyazkov resigned along with his cabinet, bowing to weeks of street protests over economic policy and long-standing anger at the state’s failure to curb corruption.
Zhelyazkov announced his government’s decision in a televised address, stepping down just minutes before parliament was due to vote on a no-confidence motion.
His departure came at a particularly sensitive moment, weeks before Bulgaria is scheduled to join the eurozone on January 1 — a milestone now clouded by renewed uncertainty.
The immediate trigger was a fresh wave of mass protests. Thousands of Bulgarians rallied in Sofia and dozens of other towns, the latest in a series of demonstrations reflecting deep public frustration with corruption and economic management. Opposition parties and civil groups protested proposed increases in social security contributions and higher taxes on dividends to fund expanded state spending.
As pressure mounted, the government withdrew its 2026 budget — the first drafted in euros — but the concession failed to calm the streets. Demonstrations continued, reinforcing a sense of exhaustion in a country that has held seven national elections in the past four years, most recently in October 2024.
President Rumen Radev added to the pressure, publicly urging the government to step aside. “Between the voice of the people and the fear of the mafia. Listen to the public squares!” he wrote on Facebook as the protests peaked.
Zhelyazkov’s resignation extended Bulgaria’s cycle of short-lived governments and fractured parliaments. With coalition talks uncertain, Radev has begun consultations with political parties and stands ready to appoint an interim government and call another snap election if no majority emerges.
With inputs from agencies
End of Article
