The past week has seen a series of explosions in U.S. politics: the congressional budget was vetoed, Trump ordered the U.S. military to "open fire" in Latin America, and the historical letters handed over by Russia made Washington rare expressions of gratitude.
On the one hand, paralyzing domestic affairs, on the other hand, firing warships, on the other hand, signs of mitigation, and three seemingly unrelated events, which put together the real picture of the present United States: uncertainty, anxiety, probation, confrontation and compromise.
One wave uneven, one wave again, the world's number one power is walking on an increasingly shaking steel rope.
Uncontrolled internal affairs
On October 15th, the U.S. Senate voted on the ninth edition of the provisional appropriations bill, but the result failed again, with 51 votes in favor and 44 votes against, which is still far from the 60-vote threshold.
This is the ninth attempt by Congress to avoid the failure of the government in the past two months, reflecting the deep gap between the two parties, and more significantly, despite the Republicans holding 53 seats in the Senate, two voted against, while Democrats and two independent lawmakers voted veto.
On the surface, the dispute focused on specific projects such as health insurance, immigration, and subsidies for low-income groups, but in reality it has long gone beyond financial differences and evolved into a comprehensive confrontation of system and philosophy.
Republicans are demanding significant cuts in social welfare spending to cope with the rising federal deficit, while Democrats are committed to safeguarding basic security for the underlying peoples.
The direct consequence of this political impasse is that more than 750,000 federal employees face salary cuts, daily administration paralyses, and the Pentagon is embarrassed to have to use $8 billion of research funding originally used for the development of a new generation of radar systems to temporarily pay military loans in order not to interfere with the operation of the military.
Although this practice of "robbing Peter to pay Paul" is an expedient measure, in the long run, both military morale and technological development may be impacted. At the same time, Trump has not tried to ease the situation, but has taken advantage of the trend to cut the funding of a number of projects closely related to the Democratic Party, further stimulating opposition.
Democrats have vowed to block all “social fairness” budget proposals, saying that the budget crash is not just fiscal, but a pre-election ahead of next year’s presidential election.
Attack abroad
Just at the time of domestic unrest, Trump chose to turn his eyes south, and in early October, the U.S. military carried out a military strike on a ship allegedly carrying illegal goods in the Caribbean, killing six people.
Subsequently, the U.S. released a 33-second video showing patrol ships launching cannons to sink target ships, but the U.S. did not publish the full intelligence basis, which has raised widespread doubt in the international community.
The Venezuelan government responded quickly, accusing the US military of "indiscriminate killing of innocent people," claiming that the one that was sunk was an ordinary fishing boat, and demanding an international investigation.
The Trump administration insisted that it was a legitimate action to "crack down on cross-border criminal groups" and held a large-scale live-fire exercise in the Caribbean in the following two weeks, clearly sending a tough signal.
Behind such actions is a reflection of the Trump administration’s resuming of the “Monroe” Latin-American policy, which, on the contrary, is not through economic infiltration, but naked military deterrence.
This has also sparked widespread concerns among regional nations, on the one hand about the fact that the United States intervened in the name of combating crime, and on the other hand about the possibility that such unilateral actions could become a model for other great powers to imitate and undermine the fundamental order of international maritime law.
At present, the entire Latin American region is in a sensitive period of political transformation and social instability, with U.S. military intervention undoubtedly adding to the smell of fire, and more importantly, the legitimacy and necessity of such military actions are disputed at home and abroad.
For Trump, this is both a means of showing strength on the outside as well as a strategy of shifting the focus on the inside, especially in the context of blocked budgets and crowdsourcing.
An unexpected turn.
Just as the shelling on the sea did not go out, Washington received another “peace signal” from Moscow, with the Russian government delivering to the United States through diplomatic channels a set of historical documents about the Kennedy assassination, along with a private letter written by Putin to Trump.
The case was not on a massive scale in mainstream media, but was confirmed by Republican Representative Anna Paulina Luna, who called the documents “huge historical significance.”
The specific contents of these files have not been made public, but their symbolic significance is self-evident. As early as January 2025, Trump signed a decree promising to fully declassify the files related to Kennedy's assassination.
The Russian side at this time actively cooperated, undoubtedly in this issue to Trump "delivered a favorable information", this move is also considered as the rare "non-confrontational interaction" between the US and Russia in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
The content of Putin's personal letter has not been disclosed, but from the perspective of diplomatic practice, direct communication between top leaders often means some strategic intention or tentative signal.
Combined with the current US-Russian relations in a low valley, this move may not be a simple courteous exchange, but rather a pretext for the two sides to seek "limited contact" in certain areas, historically, the US-South has secretly established a hotline communication mechanism after the Cuban missile crisis, such a "post-crisis dialogue" has become an important mechanism to avoid misjudgment during the Cold War.
Although it is impossible to judge whether this means that US-Russian relations will ease, at least on the emotional surface, the rare public expression of "thanks" by the United States has revealed subtle diplomatic temperature changes.
For Trump, the file and letter will not only help fulfill his promise of "transparent government," but may also become a bargaining chip for him to win over conservative voters.
Internal and external games are difficult to solve
From the ongoing impasse of Congressional budgets, to military strikes in the Latin American waters, to covert interactions with Russia, these three events have come together to illustrate a contradictory status quo in the United States.
Internal affairs are not able to effectively advance, political party opposition intensifies; the diplomatic strategy is unstable, while raising the bars high, while releasing the olive branch, which not only exposes the double face of the Trump administration in policy implementation, but also reflects the confusion and probation of the overall strategic direction of the United States.
The repeated blockages of the budget have seriously questioned the government's ability to govern. At the same time, Trump has demonstrated a "strongman stance" through military action in an attempt to stabilize the fundamentals of conservatives.
But such “external strikes” tend to be accompanied by higher risks, especially in today’s increasingly cautious international community of unilateralism, where “informal contacts” with Russia are like a backup card that may open up a diplomatic buffering channel when blocked in other directions.
This is not the first time that domestic and foreign links have occurred, with Nixon historically launching “Chinese-American contacts” when the Water Gate incident was in crisis; the Reagan administration increasing pressure on the Soviet Union during the economic downturn; and now, Trump seems to be also replicating a similar path, trying to mask the power of domestic governance with foreign hardships and diplomatic breakthroughs.
But the difference is that today's world is no longer a Cold War pattern, and every move of the United States is magnified and examined by the global market, public opinion and allies.
If domestic political confrontation cannot be reconciled for a long time, it will make the United States more and more indifferent in the global game, and foreign "fire" can boost public opinion in the short term, but if it lacks long-term strategic support, it will only create more uncertainty in the international order.
From the budget to maritime conflicts, to the subtle interaction with Moscow, this series of actions of the United States seem chaotic, but in fact they all point to a core issue-how to maintain global leadership under the interweaving of internal and external pressures.
Today, the United States is no longer the superpower that can unilaterally define rules. In times of turmoil, any wrong step may trigger unpredictable knock-on effects.
Source of information:
Russia: Putin's letter to Trump 2025-10-16 13:01
Trump: The US military sank a "drug ship" in waters near Venezuela, killing 6 people 2025-10-15 06: 32 · China News Network
The U.S. Senate is "stuck" again, and the Republican temporary appropriation bill has not been passed again 2025-10-16 13: 36 · Observer.com