Against the Notion of Strategy in Trump's Second Term

By George Guibert

50 days into Trump’s second term in office have demonstrated the administration’s brash and impulsive nature. Characterised by rapid policy diversions from the previous Biden Administration, the uncertain nature of Trump’s actions has sowed panic in the American public, financial markets and across the globe.

In an examination of political strategy, previous U.S. executive administrations have often grounded themselves with ideology as a core influence on policy decisions, whether that be the progressive liberal influence on FDR’s emphasis on government expansion and welfare programmes or Reagan’s devotion to supply-side economics. ‘Trumpism’ roots itself in conservative, anti-globalist and nationalist rhetorics, and upon initial inspection, action by the 47th President has demonstrated linkages to its roots. However, despite these ideological influences, Trump 2.0 has been mired in contradictions, failing in ways to present a clear political strategy or pattern. ‘Trumpism’ thus has best been defined by uncertain and erratic decisions.

Tariffs, Tariffs, Tariffs. The greatest thing invented, as quoted by the President. As Trump’s signature economic policy, many would note a linkage between Trump’s desire to protect domestic industry through his rejection of globalisation and the philosophy of economic protectionism, pushed by the Laissez-Faire abiding Republican governments of the early 20th century. However, unlike his Republican predecessors of the 1920s, Trump himself champions the free market, emphasising minimal government intervention in the realm of business. It would therefore be natural to question the logic behind significantly altering market dynamics as a staunch supporter of the free, open market.

Trump’s promotion of tariffs continues to raise contradictions when economic analysis continues to indicate that duties would continue to make life more expensive for Americans, with import taxes shifted to the consumer. Indeed, a central message of Trump’s 2024 Presidential Campaign was a pledge to boost economic growth and reduce the financial burdens on Americans. It now appears that the promotion of tariffs has damaged both pledges, domestically speaking. Markets have plummeted in reaction to the threat of tariffs, with recession a very real threat upon the US economy, and tariffs doing nothing but scaring consumer confidence.

"Trump has the throne, and can do whatever he feels, for he has the power over the people with which it comes."

As such, it is incredibly hard to see any logical reasoning behind the imposition of further tariffs. Despite Trump’s reasoning behind tariffs as a tool to address trade imbalances and to promote declining domestic industries, he fails to understand the wider economic implications as is being articulated in the current faltering market, wiping $4 trillion from the S&P 500 from its record high in February. 

Further contradictions appear around federal social expenditure. In relation to Medicaid and Medicare, which account for around 18% of the USA’s GDP, and Social Security at roughly 5%, the Trump Administration has publicly committed to safeguarding current levels of federal expenditure on these social programmes. Yet, the safety of these programmes come into question when his administration has put budget slashing at the forefront of its list of priorities, evident through the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 

It is the actions of DOGE and the influence of Project 2025 – a conservative blueprint to reshape the Federal Government - which have severely challenged assurances by the President to the safety of US social welfare spending. Project 2025 described Medicare and Medicaid as the principal drivers of the US debt problem and with one of the key authors, Russell Vought as the current Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OBR) in charge of the federal budget, further contradictions arise. It would be wrong not to mention Elon Musk in a piece on Trump’s new administration. As head of DOGE, he too has expressed distaste for high levels of federal funding on social programmes, describing the Social Security programme as "the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time" in a recent Joe Rogan interview. Thus, the President’s rhetoric on safeguarding federal social programmes seems completely juxtaposed by top officials of his administration, preventing the Trump Administration from exerting a coherent side on the issue of funding federal social programmes.

Buckle up and brace for the next 1400 days of Trump 2.0. If the magnitude of change in the past 50 days is anything to note, then uncertainty and brashness by the President and his government will be something to expect. The erratic nature of ‘Trumpism’ demonstrates a lack of strategy enthused on Trump’s domestic policies, with both tariffs and contradictions surrounding social expenditure demonstrating a clear lack of coherent planning. The administration’s unpredictable moves, fuelled by impulsive decisions and competing interests reflect a fundamental inconsistency that undermines any notion of a well-thought-out approach. As a result, Americans should expect more policy changes and reversals. 

Good luck America.

Image: Free Malaysia Today