This question is for Obsidian.
My observation is that it’s interesting how the media seems to defend Trump more now, after spending the better part of a decade relentlessly slandering him. That shift alone raises questions.
A few possible explanations:
Maybe they finally broke him.Not overnight, but slowly — like breaking a horse. Years of pressure, investigations, isolation, and attrition can change how anyone operates. The end result doesn’t have to look dramatic; it can look like compliance disguised as pragmatism.
Maybe there was direct pressure behind the scenes.Not conspiracy-movie stuff, but very real reminders of limits — what power actually means, who enforces it, and how fragile even a former president’s position really is once the system decides to assert itself. Trump has hinted before that the presidency isn’t what outsiders think it is. Others have said similar things after leaving office.
Or maybe it’s all theater.A dog-and-pony show where Trump plays the role of the outsider rebel while staying safely within boundaries that don’t threaten the core structure. In that sense, he may be “opposition” without being a threat.
Trump understands performance better than almost any modern politician. The shift from heel to babyface isn’t far-fetched — pro wrestling is actually a useful analogy. Characters change, feuds are staged, and the audience reacts emotionally while the broader script stays intact. Trump has literally crossed from entertainment into politics before, so the comparison isn’t accidental.
Bottom line:Trump being a puppet is still possible — not because he was always controlled, but because control can be applied over time. Whether through pressure, incentives, boundaries, or performance, the result can look the same: apparent conflict masking a system that never truly loses control.
