What happened during term 1 is a clue to what is most likely to happen during term 2. We're already in a dark period, and he didn't have much to do with enabling it. If foreign actors are emboldened by perceived US weakness, that's on the current administration.
Apparently,
this is a real comment on Axios's X account: "Trump supporters cite his economic record as a reason to vote for him, but that's a bit puzzling. Because his economic record is only good if you leave off what happened from March 2020 to the end of his administration."
A couple of things: First, that it admits the "economic record" was good for 3 years. Second, that it coyly evades mentioning what happened in March 2020.
Another point of evidence: lack of tendency to engage in new wars.
Another point of evidence: when the Iranians shot down a US drone, an option to respond by attacking some Iranian assets was put on the table. Trump declined after initially asking for a response; whether he did so because the casualty estimates were somewhere north of 100+ (Iranians) is up to each person to believe or not for himself. When an Iranian-backed attack a little over 6 months later resulted in the death of an American, that was supposedly the trigger for the Soleimani assassination. Taken together, those don't suggest a highly belligerent president.
Another point of evidence: Trump's administration received a high number of nation-wide injunctions in the courts, and in general consistently complied with court rulings. When they got slapped down, they either dropped the matter or reworked whatever they were trying to achieve, in a few cases going back more than once.
A lot of people are throwing out interviews and articles with "concerns". The "concerns" aren't tethered to analyses of what went before; the "concerns" are what people imagine might happen. That's the realm of "you can prove anything if you are allowed to make up your evidence". No rational person should heed any of that.
My prediction if Trump wins again: he wanders from idea to idea, influenced by the advice of whoever was the last person to speak to him on any particular topic. Any proposed initiative that he thinks will make him look like a Great Person, will be green-lit. The civil service, courts, military, state governments, etc will be full of people he can't appoint who will simply refuse to proceed with anything manifestly unlawful or harmful, and quite a few people who will actively work to subvert even legitimate implementation of policies with which they disagree. There will be no dictatorship, no authoritarian government, no new wars pushed by the White House. There will be a lot of unpleasant noise from Trump himself. People who want aid for Ukraine - or anything else - won't have to make complex policy arguments or explain how it serves US interests; they'll just have to convince Trump that history will see him as a Great Person if he does it.