Trump administration

With Donald Trump moving so rapidly on so many fronts, it is hard to grasp the big picture. What are his overriding goals, politically and electorally? What has he already accomplished?  Here is a summary in case you are keeping score. Trump has done more in a few weeks than any president in history. He took office with a coherent, detailed program and control of Congress (though a very narrow majority in the House). He is acting swiftly before his political capital dissipates.  Trump hopes to sustain his winning electoral coalition beyond his time in office. That’s why he chose a young populist, J.D. Vance, as his vice president and presumptive successor.

Fresh off guiding a series of President Trump’s nominees through the high-wire act of the cabinet approval process in the Senate, Vice President J.D. Vance has a new assignment: acting as sherpa for the even more difficult task of a potential sale of TikTok. Punchbowl reports today that Vance, along with national security advisor Mike Waltz, will be taking on the challenge of living up to one of Trump’s more audacious promises, given that they’re up against a ticking clock, an unwilling seller in ByteDance and very real security concerns about the power of the Chinese Communist Party that must be satisfied for any sale to take place.

Since 9/11, Washington has spent billions of dollars promoting “democratic norms” abroad. The policy mirrored the late Soviet Union's attempts to promote communism in countries outside Moscow’s direct control, as witnessed under the leadership Leonid Brezhnev. And now at last it appears to have ended, following Donald Trump's executive orders and yesterday’s State Department takeover of the United States Agency for International Development. This American Brezhnev policy has had a kind of Alice-in-Wonderland effect: democratically elected leaders such as Ukraine’s ill-fated Viktor Yanukovych could be violently overthrown in the name of democracy.

For the past month, the tone among Washington insiders was dour as it related to the confirmation prospects of Donald Trump’s edgier nominees. Sure, the argument went, Marco Rubio is a slam dunk, and no one takes issue with Doug Burgum or Sean Duffy. But the attitude toward Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination for health and human services secretary and Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination as director of national intelligence were grim. More than a dozen Republican insiders in the past week assured me that one or both nominations were doomed, citing the opposition from the Wall Street Journal editorial page, legacy newspaper columnists such as David French and Marc Thiessen and the editors of National Review, who took a particularly aggressive stance against Gabbard. All of them lost.

When US officials and former officials face lethal dangers for the work they did in office, they deserve protection from the country they served. That’s true whether they served the country well or poorly, whether they can pay for that protection themselves — most cannot — and whether they are loathed by the next administration.  Those are pitiful reasons for denying them protection. If today’s officials, or yesterday’s, are threatened because of what they did in office, they deserve protection. They may not deserve our gratitude. They may not deserve our thanks and appreciation. That depends on our assessment of their performance. But they deserve our protection from domestic terrorists and foreign actors such as Iran.

It is said that the adage “he who hesitates is lost” is an adaptation of a line from Joseph Addison’s 1712 play Cato. I do not believe that Donald Trump is a student of the co-founder of The Spectator, but he has clearly absorbed that nugget of practical wisdom. Within hours of taking office on Monday, Trump issued some 200 executive orders and proclamations affecting the government’s conduct on everything from immigration to DEI, from energy policy to the 1,500 people incarcerated in Washington jails because they joined in the protest at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.   It is one thing to issue orders and proclamations. It is another thing to see them carried out successfully.

The mood in Washington, at least in the quarters I frequented, has been almost giddy these past few days. I watched Donald Trump’s second inauguration ceremony from the snug fastness of a secure, undisclosed location close to the White House. Joining me were about 300 politically mature citizens. Some were young, some old; some male, some female; many walks of life were represented. There were periodic cheers during the address, beginning with Trump’s declaration of “a national emergency at our southern border. “All illegal entry will immediately be halted,” he said, “and we will begin the process of returning millions and millions of criminal aliens back to the places from which they came.” My comrades liked that.

The British royals are coming after American free speech, just days before Donald Trump is set to take office as president for the second time. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle expressed outrage that Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, changed policy to rely on community notes versus a dedicated fact-checking department. Ironically, the pair suggested Meta’s policy change “directly undermines free speech.” How exactly? Because, according to Harry and Meghan, Mark Zuckerberg is, allegedly, prioritizing those using social media “to spread hate, lies and division.

Pete Hegseth was the first cabinet nominee to the breach, leading Donald Trump’s collection of outsiders, populists and hellraisers into the Capitol Hill combat they can all expect to navigate in the coming weeks. And in terms of a first confrontation with the opponent, Hegseth handled his mission manfully — taking the slings and arrows from the Democratic side of the aisle with relative ease. At one point, exasperated Connecticut senator Richard Blumenthal — you’ll remember him from not serving in Vietnam and falsely claiming that he did — said, “I don’t dispute your communication skills.” And how could he? Hegseth seemed more than ready to address the accusations from Senate Democrats head on, and the Republicans on the committee seemed unperturbed by their attacks.

The nasty fight between Elon Musk and Steve Bannon over H-1B visas, meant for high-skilled workers, is the Ghost of Christmas Future. That’s not because the visas themselves will be a perennial problem. It’s because of three larger implications, foreshadowed by the visa dispute. One is the battle between populist nationalists (represented, in this case, by Steve Bannon) and growth-oriented American companies with extensive foreign markets. Those are led by hi-tech industries, represented here by Elon Musk, which benefit from bringing in foreign engineers, programmers and others. The second implication is that, in a country with only two major parties, there are bound to be major cleavages within each party on a wide range of issues.

Could 2025 give Democrats a do-over for how they misplayed the results of Donald Trump's first election? Early signs point to yes — and that could come at the consternation of some conservatives. Let's consider some political alternative history for a moment. In the immediate aftermath of the 2016 election, it's easy to forget how many Democrats started sounding a note of reconciliation with the incoming president. Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders were all open about their willingness to find common ground with the new White House on infrastructure and other policy areas, hoping their views would be closer to Trump's than more fiscally conservative Republicans.