It is impossible to know what the Not-Hillary inauguration will bring.
Not-Hillary because putting up Hillary as candidate was the most stupid thing the Democratic party and it paymasters could do. She had extremely high negative ratings and stood for everything that one could dislike with the party's policies.
Many who ended up not voting or voted for Trump could have been easily won by a different Democratic candidate even with much of the same general policies (see: Obama, Barack).
Hillary would surely have lost against any middle-of-the-road Republican candidate.
History will note that she was an arrogant but incompetent Democratic candidate who lost against a rather bad Republican candidate, one who lacked support even from his own party.
Trump won barely, but she lost completely...
Seen from the perspective of power centers Clinton once had all the support she needed. But she then lost a decisive group due to her uncompromising neo-conned foreign policy.
Here is an interesting take based on a theory from the 1950s:
[T]he power elite can be best described as a "triangle of power," (The Structure of Power in American Society) linking the corporate, executive government, and military factions:
"There is a political economy numerously linked with military order and decision. This triangle of power is now a structural fact, and it is the key to any understanding of the higher circles in America today."
The 2016 US election, like all other US elections, featured a gallery of pre-selected candidates that represented the three factions and their interests within the power elite.
The 2016 US election, however, was vastly different from previous elections.
As the election dragged on the power elite became bitterly divided, with the majority supporting Hillary Clinton, the candidate pre-selected by the political and corporate factions, while the military faction rallied around their choice of Donald Trump.
That is only a rough take.
The corporate factions are divided within.
The decisive political point in this election round was the fight between neo-conservatives/liberal-interventionists and foreign policy realists.
One side is represented exemplary by the CIA with the U.S. military on the other:
A schism developed between the Defense Department and the highly politicized CIA. This schism, which can be attributed to the corporate-deep-state’s covert foreign policy, traces back to the CIA orchestrated "color revolutions" that had swept the Middle East and North Africa.
The CIA created bloodthirsty future enemies the military will later have to defeat. Fascists in Ukraine and Takfiris all over the Middle East are used by the CIA to further neocon aims but then require relative cheap military intervention at high human costs.
The Generals do not like that (the precedence of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was enough for them.) Neither does the military industry.
Fighting Takfiris does not require big ticket items. Ratcheting up the rhetoric against peer competitors (without ever fighting a real war) is the best justification for a two million strong military and huge military contracts.
It is still astonishing that the military Trump faction of the power triangle could win the fight. Trump made that possible when he used a hostile media for his gain. The corporate media stood strongly behind Clinton but that was not enough to hide her negative sides.
Trump's salesmen bluster proved too fascinating to not be reported. In the end the media that hated him ended up making the very best advertisement for him.
For weeks the neoconned Washington Post editorial page ran five or six anti-Trump pieces per day. That alone was for some reason enough to vote for Trump.
Trump will now have to win over other parts of the power triangle. The corporate part is the easy one. He will lower its taxes. He will also, in one form or another, reinstate tariffs along the U.S. borders.
His confrontational position against main exporting countries,
...will also transfer into higher U.S. corporate profits.
It may even create some additional jobs in the U.S. which would help him to get reelected.
The military will demand its due beyond the three generals now in Trump's cabinet. But soldiers do not like to go to war. That means that Trump will increase conflict rhetoric against some foreign countries but also that he will not start any serious war.
Expect the announcement of some super nifty, new but useless military wonder weapon for which Trump will promise trillions (Reagan's star wars redux).
The most difficult faction to win over to his view is the political/executive/secret services side including many people within his own party. Neoliberalism has inflicted those on all levels.
Trump will have to neutralize or fire people in their upper ranks early and often. If he fails to do that all his plans will be challenged and stymied in their early implementation.
Trump is a highly gifted salesman, one of the best I have ever seen. His general business skills are more average. He is full of bluster before going into negotiations.
His current rhetoric in relations to other countries should be seen as opening shots. Such threats and offers alike are to him just parts of a negotiation process. His main aim with those will be to get some manufacturing back into the United States.
He needs some success in this, in creating jobs, jobs, jobs and raising wages, to secure his reelection.
Economically Trump will lower taxes and increase spending (after some minor for-show cuts.) U.S. national debt will rise significantly. Interest rates will rise in conflict with his aim to lower the dollar value in exchange markets.
His U.S. centric protectionism will allow other countries to also take steps in such a direction.
At one point Trump will have to take up a fight with speculative Wall Street banking. It is an impediment for all his other aims. This will be his most difficult fight and the one he will probably lose.
Over all I do not expect anything exceptional from Trump.
His time in the White House will probably turn out to be minor remake of Reagan's...