Although Donald Trump has an obvious role in the later stages of the problem, it began long before 2015. It is important to note some critical changes that happened before Trump had political power.
The problem began in 1979 with the overthrow of the Shah of Iran. Before that the military in the United States was on the political right, usually against communism. After that the U.S. military often found itself on the political left. From the viewpoint of the Arabic world most people in the United States are too far left. Communism having established small territorial gains in Southeast Asia had begun to slow its military grabbing of other areas. The "Domino Effect" did not happen as predicted.
The military "crew cut," required especially short at the lower ranks, no longer could be the emblem of the political right in the United States. Even the higher military ranks were not allowed more than 3 or 4 inches. Many people right and left lost their way. The Republican Party fractured. Much of the impetus for the "Tea Party" was the need to stand more to the right and avoid too much dependence on the military spending that had become a burden for the political right.
From 1979 to this day, no right leaning political group has been able to get control of spending and so the national debt has risen whichever party was in power even when holding the White House and both houses of Congress. There was an exception, a brief pause, where the national debt held somewhat steady. It occurred during the Clinton years, but has been attributed to the tax changes implemented by George H. W. Bush immediately before.
An artificial clash between religion and science had been in the news since the last third of the nineteenth century. "Artificial" because the so called "Evolution versus Creation" issue sometimes called a "debate" engaged many people who cannot begin to understand either religion or science. On one side were people who were determined to take the Bible literally, which the Bible itself does not require. On the other side were people determined to extend the argument for the origin of species to the origin of life which science does not require.
The clash of the those misinformed groups came to court in 1925 in the famous "Scopes" trial. An important point to note is that the government took the side against teaching "human evolution," fining Scopes $100 (later excused). Notice that by 2007 in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial the government had switched sides and ruled for the teaching of evolution to the exclusion of "creationism.". In 1925 the case was against one man, not the school system, in 2007 the case was against the entire school system of Dover, Delaware which by this time had begun to formally and systematically recognize "intelligent design."
The great flaw in that trial was to insist that old arguments based on an inferred "fixity of species" (not really in the Bible) or "creationism" were merely assuming a disguise in "intelligent design." Not only is fixity of species not in the Bible, people had been breeding plants and animals for centuries before the Bible was written. In the story in Genesis of Jacob tending Laban's flocks is an exercise of that knowledge, to which Darwin added nothing significant.
It was possible for reasonable people at the end of the nineteenth century to pretend life might assemble by sheer accident. However, with the vast advances over time in microscope technology and the understanding of the complex, interrelated systems necessary for life, it became increasingly difficult. Today the people pretending life could begin from lightning striking mud are either mentally retarded or bold liars. To pretend it could is the big lie currently destroying the educational system. Take a look.
In 2007 the government went rogue.
The problem was already in full bloom long before Trump secured the Republican nomination. The political right had lost their banner and a huge source of funding. The schools were overrun by government idiots and liars. There is a possibility some of the people voting for Trump in the primaries and the general election understood the problem and believed he might do something to solve it. That was not in the news though.
In the news it had become obvious that Hillary Clinton would be the nominee of the Democrats. Some people did not like the bad behavior of her husband when he was president and preferred not to deal with that. Others thought electing her president was a good way to put Bill in his place. Republicans were uncomfortable running against, and possibly defeating, the first woman to become president of the United States. That left the nomination open to Donald Trump, a long time friend of Hillary Clinton.
Whatever else was in the news or not, many people were in shock and disbelief when Hillary lost. What was the secret of Trump's success? In retrospect the best explanation appears that the right had become increasingly desperate since 1979. "Tea Party" reforms were considered "radical" and not winning elections. There were of course always those who would claim everything was fine when their own party was in power and any problems were residual from the other party. The numbers however did not support any such euphoria. By 2016 Republicans were so desperate they would take anyone even as ridiculous as Trump, who for them would be a "wrecking ball" to Washington.
If any voters thought he would they were sooner or later disappointed. Trump would not even begin any discussion of the case. Why not? Republicans held the presidency and both houses of Congress during the Trump administration.
There are two very different reasons. One is that Republicans do not understand the biology and math sufficiently to make any case. The other is that although they are fairly certain life could not begin without more help than Darwin fans of the day allowed, they prefer to lie. Some people do not want any god outside their own government. They have the opinion that their government can work better without any competition from uncertain agencies. They are likely wrong about that. A government constantly checking over its shoulder for additional agencies probably works much better.
The truth is probably both reasons. They prefer to be overbearing and are too plain stupid to realize they no longer can be.
If you believe the individual states have the right to allocate their electoral college votes according to their own style and procedures, Trump lost. If you believe Trump or Pence has the right as late in the game as January 6, 2021 to alter those results, then some very remote chance that could be honest and successful exists. There is a timely manner to reconsider counts. The government cannot continuously be recounting. At some point the normal process of an administration needs to begin.
The inability of some Republicans to accept the election results further underscores their already obvious desperation. The truth is that Trump did not add many new adherents to his ideals. Who has ever said, "I was a socialist, but after considering the stunningly rational arguments of Trump I have to change to capitalist now"? In fact some people have said, "If I thought Trump represents religion then I would be an atheist." Trump makes no rational arguments. He holds rallies where people stomp and shout. That considered, it is most likely Trump did lose. He lost because his government was overbearing, exactly as it would be when it cannot allow any gods competing with it. He lost because the national debt increased as much under his administration as under Obama's. He lost because he would not overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover.
As noted above, the people who prefer to be overbearing and are too plain stupid to realize they no longer can be. The biology and the math are well above the talents of most elementary school students, and apparently adult Republicans. The key problem, even during the 2007 case, is a misunderstanding of the term "random."
Most evolutionists work much with the mathematics of probabilities in order to enhance their standing in arguments. Cards, dice, and other games of chance create a "random" condition in the sense that the outcome cannot be exactly known. In those scenarios exact "probabilities" can be "given" based on the equipment. If there are exactly 52 possibilities and they are made virtually equal then the probability of a particular outcome would be exactly 1/52.
Beyond games of chance the mathematics of probabilities have little use because the "real" world does not reveal many exact probabilities. Statistical analysis is widely overrated. Most probabilities are not "given" and the ones estimated from surveys can be notoriously uncertain. In some special cases where the number of unknown factors is especially small, higher levels of accuracy can be obtained
The common usage of the term "random" then is for "unknown" or "unconscious" sorts of decision makers or agencies. Notice that definition is still primary in dictionaries. But that usage incorrectly bestows an agency on the inanimate universe. In the inanimate universe there are no choices. Only one outcome is possible, the "probability" is always 1, meaning it must happen. In fact the only way to get any choices is with the "free will" of conscious agencies. That requires a new definition for "random." You're welcome.
To illustrate how difficult these concepts can be for most people I created a rather simple problem in probabilities. The exercise is to roll a single die 4 times. The question is what is the probability that an outcome of three dots topmost occurs two and only two of the four rolls? The answer I found is P = 0.1157407407 if each face of the die has the same probability of landing topmost.
I created my own example to avoid people finding an answer by an internet search. As of this writing it does not appear the solution is easily found on the internet, that is, the explanation of how that number was found, obviously we already have the number. I of course know exactly how I got my number.
Actually once a die has left the hand there is no longer any random choice available, we simply are not informed enough about the elasticity of the die and the tabletop and the wind resistance and direction and relation to the density and on and on to know what that outcome is until it happens.
Granting then that there are no "random" agencies in the inanimate universe, and perhaps correcting dictionaries to include that definition of "random" (You can do that much, can you not?), how does that argue against "random" initial assembly of life? Are there not millions of species? While there are countless numbers of species, that involves living things capable of truly random actions. In the inanimate catalog there are only about a hundred naturally occurring elements. Wait as long as you want, there aren't going to be any new natural elements, because no conscious agency is involved. Such "new" elements as there are require our intervention in nature. Although some agencies in the inanimate universe appear random they have very limited characteristics, that is, no further choices. If they are self destructive, they have no choice to become less destructive.
About that time I was besieged with arguments from my opponents that they had already made sufficient arguments in the 1970s that should overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover. Generally speaking court cases are not overturned without new information. I believe my new definition of "random" qualifies as the new information required. You might believe it is not helpful. That is an opinion and you are entitled to your opinions. My way at least we have the appearance of new information. Remember my opponents are the people who still cannot solve the simple question in probabilities I wrote for them. It is not enough to allow the existence of random agencies in the inanimate universe and simply complain they take too long. It is better to state outright that there are NO random agencies in the inanimate universe and thus any outcome is known exactly according to the laws of science.
I noted that as late as the 1980s there was a plenitude of arguments for rather long wait times for the progress of assembling initial life that were based on the misunderstanding of the term "random." Now my opponents have shifted their attention away from Kitzmiller v. Dover to Roe v. Wade.
When the Supreme Court leaked that it believed the Constitution provides no protection for the rights of women citizens of the United States in any scenario where abortion is involved, most people of even average intelligence and above assumed the Supreme Court would never do anything that stupid. Nevertheless the Supreme Court did. That is the Trump legacy.
Now it will be necessary to write in protections for some of those scenarios so that no court can "interpret" those rights away.
Even if they succeed in eliminating the rights of women on paper, I explained how such attitudes are not enforceable. If there is an exception for rape a woman might claim to be raped even if the evidence is sketchy. If there is no exception for rape enormous judgments for damages become sensible because childbearing opportunities are limited and that eliminates one whole free choice. That invites fraud.
My opponents countered that while perhaps "unenforceable" in the past it can now be enforced because "doorbell cameras." Don't laugh, they mean it. I believe their understanding of law enforcement is childish. Obviously there is not now any comprehensive network of cameras such as would be necessary to make that effective. Some problems in implementing such a network are who pays for it and, much more importantly, who controls it. Should there be one central control agency? Where is the check on that power? Should there be independent control? Would that not also be susceptible to misuse? One opponent even suggested that people not cooperating with the new comprehensive network be accused of rape. Who saw that on the horizon? Maybe laugh now. I am certain doorbell cameras can reduce crime even if for now only where there was little crime anyway. I do doubt though that they can make this a perfect world ever. You are of course free to hope as you please.
Also in vain attempts to have some "accomplishment" to show, some in the Trump base argue that "the Bible says life begins at conception." Nowhere in the Bible does it say when life begins. Some verses indicate life begins before conception, however it does not follow (is a non sequitur) that such life must be embodied at conception. Of course it might be, but it could wait for who knows what, a heartbeat perhaps?.
Science does not recognize any soul because they cannot detect one with laboratory equipment. So they can be no help saying when a soul might be embodied.
One good thing about the people who do what they are told without questioning it is that it can, under good leadership, save the time, expense and heartache of trying bad ideas over and over. The people on the right have in better times saved much. But as explained in detail here they lost their way, would not heed good leaders, and now have to learn the hard way, yet again, how their plans fail. Where are the savings now?
Donald Trump was elected by accident. The right lost its way and became increasingly desperate over time. People who actually understand religion, science, economics, crew cuts, probabilities, scam crime reports, and logical argument shudder and wince at the stomping and shouting of the enraged Trump base. That base might "win" something or other. They might win because they are too stupid to realize they are not doing any good. Then too, the Democrats are no better at science than the Republicans are at religion. Both parties are dominated by the Creation versus Evolution crowds who understand neither science, religion, nor much of anything else. They turn to politics because it is the one place that cannot kick them out.
When you finally realize the inanimate universe has no choices and only living things have a "free will" if anything does, and overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover, there is a special bonus. When people have "gender disphoria" you can tell them that their mind is the one thing they can change, they cannot really change their bodies. Then you can suggest they stop desecrating themselves.