Few US presidents have ever sparked as much debate — both domestically and internationally — as Donald Trump.

Currently, he stands tall for his role in the ceasefire and release of the hostages in Gaza. It is still early times, however, towards a permanent end to the war but at least, for now, hostilities have ceased and the hostage deal — the release of the last 20 living hostages and Israel’s freeing of some 2,000 Palestinian prisoners -– are major achievements for which Trump is being hailed.

Meanwhile, back home, his abrasive crackdown on immigrants using masked ICE agents backed by military troops forcibly separating children from their parents, detaining suspected illegal immigrants for days before deportation without trial, his politicizing of the US Justice Department and the FBI to retaliate against perceived political enemies, and his scandalous profiteering off his presidency, among other questionable actions, are widely condemned, in some instances, even by GOP members of Congress.

Trump, indeed, is a paradox.

On the global front, his role in securing the release of the hostages held by Hamas is cited by his supporters as a demonstration of effective, bold diplomacy, promising lasting peace in the region.

But at home, his leadership style has been polarizing, creating a climate of fear and resentment.

His immigration policies which many see as verging on lawlessness are being rationalized by his administration and supporters as necessary to restore law and order, but critics contend that they actually threaten democratic institutions and civil liberties.

His supporters believe his bold approach revitalizes American global leadership, promotes economic growth through deregulation and bolsters national sovereignty. The broader question is whether Trump’s brand of interventionism benefits the world.

For instance, his role in Gaza was welcomed with much praise but at the Summit in Egypt to where he traveled after the exchange of hostages in Israel, Trump, along with the leaders of over 20 countries including Turkey, Egypt and Qatar, inked a document the contents of which weren’t made clear. It was also left unsigned by Israel and Hamas, neither of which were represented at the summit.

Still and all, if his success in Gaza eventually does result in permanent peace, it could give Trump a stronger hand in other crisis zones — Ukraine included — and will most certainly shift the perception of US reliability under his administration, and of his seriousness in diplomacy beyond rhetoric.

This could open or reopen channels of influence, diplomatic capital in negotiations and more trust from US allies in the region and elsewhere in the world.

And yet, Trump’s track record carries a lot of baggage and the controversies hounding his presidency could limit how much global prestige he can derive, even if the deal in Gaza works.

As it is, many, even among those who welcomed the part he played in the hostage release, are wondering: will the ceasefire last? How will Palestinian rights, humanitarian access to Gaza and civilian protection be accounted for?

Trump’s record on immigration, his statements about race and nationalism and other issues are likely to be raised in global discourse.

Much of the world watches not just what a leader does on the global stage, but also how that leader governs at home.

Criticisms of the Department of Justice and law enforcement misuse for political purposes, demands for loyalty over even the Constitution hound his image.

Even a strong peace deal might be questioned: is this an instance where Trump is using foreign policy to burnish his brand rather than to serve consistent principles?

The international community is not monolithic. Some governments, media will see his move as positive; others might see it as opportunistic, or as favoring one side — Israelites — over Palestinians too much.

The peace effort might be welcomed in Israel and its allies, but in many Arab and Muslim-majority countries, or among those sympathetic to Palestinian rights, aspects of the deal — for instance, if viewed as ignoring Palestinian self-determination, disempowering governance, or displacing people –- could provoke pushback.

Success in bringing the hostages home and ending the war in Gaza will undoubtedly be a high point of Trump’s foreign policy legacy — a signature diplomatic achievement.

But its impact on his global image could be partial and tempered, and even dismissed by controversies he has provoked at home — criticisms of abuse of governmental power, questions of moral consistency, civil rights, racism and other issues.

Thus, while his international standing improves in certain circles (alliances, diplomatic arenas, groups advocating for peace in the Middle East), what has been achieved in Gaza could be inadequate in healing or erasing reputational damage among those who see his governance style — in terms of the immigration crackdown, use of federal law enforcement, demands for loyalty among government officials, etc. — as deeply problematic.

In short, the ceasefire and release of the hostages in Gaza could augment his image in some respects, but not completely redeem it.