We’re just over a year into the Trump administration, with the President set to deliver his State of the Union address tomorrow. The obvious question hangs in the air: where do we sit?

On the economic front, the numbers tell a confident story. Job gains are up. Wages are rising. Inflation continues to cool. Businesses are investing again, consumers are spending, and GDP is moving in the right direction. Billions of dollars have flowed into government coffers through tariffs—tools that have proven less like blunt instruments and more like leverage in high-stakes negotiations.

There has, however, been a speed bump.

The Supreme Court struck down the administration’s use of a 1970s-era emergency statute to enact certain tariffs. The 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act grants the president authority to regulate imports, but six justices determined over the weekend that “tariffs” do not fall within that statutory scope.

Still, the broader policy direction remains intact. American workers and businesses have benefited from the tariffs already implemented—reshoring has accelerated, foreign competition has been curbed, and domestic manufacturing output has climbed. The administration has made clear that, despite the Court’s ruling, it intends to pursue the same priorities through different legal avenues.

As U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer put it:

Different tools. Same priorities. Same result. Which makes the opposition’s celebratory lap feel a bit premature.

Meanwhile, a Supreme Court decision with far greater political consequences may arrive as early as this week.

Louisiana’s congressional maps—drawn with race as a central factor—are under review. The Court is being asked to decide whether such race-based districting is constitutional. In 2023, the justices ruled that race-based affirmative action in higher education violated the Constitution. If consistency prevails, race-based gerrymandering may meet the same fate.

Louisiana has relied on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to justify its maps. But Section 2 was written to prevent racial discrimination in voting—not to mandate racial quotas in congressional representation. It guarantees equal opportunity, not guaranteed partisan outcomes tied to racial composition.

If the Court requires Louisiana to abandon race-based map drawing, the implications could be sweeping. Analysts suggest it could result in as many as three additional Republican seats in Louisiana and potentially shift between one and two dozen seats across the South. Such a ruling would likely halt redistricting efforts underway in states like California and Virginia—though not in Texas, where separate legal factors apply.

Notably, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has already struck down Louisiana’s race-based map as unconstitutional. Now the nation waits to see where the Supreme Court lands in a case that could reset the standards of representation in a country increasingly defined by identity politics.

Beyond domestic battles, America’s posture abroad has undergone a dramatic shift—one characterized by strength rather than hesitation.

U.S. military leaders have been engaging with Venezuelan officials in the wake of Nicolas Maduro’s removal. The change in leadership signals a potential transformation: from narco-state liability to strategic partner in securing the Western Hemisphere.

Venezuela once served as a foothold for Iranian, Russian, and Chinese interests in the Americas. Now, its vast oil sector may be positioned to benefit both its citizens and global markets. Energy Secretary Chris Wright recently traveled to the region to assess developments firsthand.

“It’s only up from here on out.”

Critics were quick to protest the administration’s posture toward Maduro, but the humanitarian consequences are hard to ignore. Under his rule, dissidents were imprisoned or killed. Now, hundreds of political prisoners are being released after decades behind bars—a development that should transcend partisan divides.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio underscored that point during a press conference alongside Slovakia’s prime minister, brushing aside attempts to cast doubt on the administration’s strategy.

Strength, the administration argues, is not about applause—it’s about outcomes.

Another regime under scrutiny sits across the globe.

Iran remains defiant despite mounting pressure. Reports indicate that President Trump is considering further military action—or potentially broader measures—after Iran’s continued refusal to negotiate in good faith over its nuclear ambitions.

Iran has long demonstrated itself to be a difficult negotiating partner. The administration maintains that peace in the Middle East is impossible if Tehran acquires nuclear capability. Unlike prior agreements that unfroze billions in assets while allowing uranium enrichment to continue, this White House insists the terms must be different.

The Pentagon has deployed a significant show of force to the region—warships and fighter jets at levels not seen in decades. Yet Iran’s Supreme Leader remains unmoved.

Those words may carry consequences. The President has reportedly issued a two-week window for serious negotiations. But as he has suggested before, diplomacy has limits—especially with regimes that openly chant “death to America.”

Closer to home, another authoritarian government is faltering.

Cuba is facing a severe oil shortage. Thousands have already fled the island, and thousands more are expected to follow. The nation’s reliance on fellow socialist regimes—particularly Venezuela and Iran—has left it exposed as those governments face their own upheavals.

Critics caution against U.S. entanglement in foreign conflicts, and concerns about broader war are understandable. Yet the administration argues that confronting regimes that sponsor terrorism and destabilize entire regions is not optional. Iran’s global terror footprint, Venezuela’s past alliances, and Cuba’s proximity—just 90 miles from American shores—underscore the stakes.

If, by the end of this term, Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba are governed by leaders aligned with democratic principles and cooperative with the United States, supporters say it would represent a geopolitical realignment worthy of historic recognition.

As President Trump prepares to address the nation, these are the forces shaping his agenda: economic leverage, judicial showdowns, redistricting battles, energy diplomacy, and strategic pressure on adversaries.

Democratic boycotts or protests will not alter the trajectory, nor will court challenges fundamentally derail it. The administration’s message heading into Year Two is simple: the foundation has been laid.

The State of the Union, by this account, is stronger than it was a year ago—and the next three years, they argue, will only build on that momentum.