How can you rationalize Trump's presidency as a destabilizing foreign policy? Like, I'm not here to claim Donald Trump was achieving world peace, or if his policies have unique responsibility for the state of the world at large...
... and yet you go on to sort of imply that. I mean, by your reasoning, I guess FDR and Lincoln were truly appalling presidents - those wars that went down on their watch, eh?
Trump decided on a radical new direction in foreign policy - aggressive, nationalist - and this caused significant disturbance: trade wars, arguments with allies, etc. Trump's administration had some wins in this area, in the sense of getting some stuff done. However, did this get short-term benefits for long-term costs - countries that trust the USA less and reducing its influence? Plus the jury's out on whether a lot of them will have successful long-term outcomes. For instance, Trump's administration decided to decisively reimagine Middle East policy, particularly regarding Israel-Palestine and Iran. But to view the current conflict and catastrophe, hard questions have to be asked about whether it delivered improvements.
You see a lot of social discontent and anger because you can only read what the news tells you
I don't think social discontent is just whether people pour out onto the streets for demonstrations and riots.