Trump has done substantially less damage to our institutions than even his supporters expected at the time of his election, and this is a testament to the antifragilty of our (normally-dysfunctional but extremely stable) political establishment. This is what I predicted back in 2016, in my counterargument against those discordian elements who supported him on the grounds that he would demolish the government (and in this more-eliptical post). Even shutting down the government for months only resulted in a lot of broke & angry government employees and a slightly increased risk of food recalls — not in any catastrophic disasters.
This is because the state is a stable self-regulating system. The state can persist without and even despite a dysfunctional chief executive, in the normal case: as we saw during Obama’s presidency, a highly motivated chief executive (regardless of their actual goals) is constantly fighting against established resistance (both elected and unelected) and must be clever in order to make changes. Those changes are liable to be subverted or rolled back, regardless of their content. (No president has been less politically radical than Obama, whose legacy is primarily one of expanding the logic of the neoliberal order supported by a quarter decade of previous administrations, and yet he nevertheless encountered enormous amounts of friction — from people and institutions fully ideologically aligned with him. Friction does not need rational justification.)