The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Reflections on Trump's Return

Trump is moving at a breakneck pace during his first weeks in office. He signed more executive orders than any of his predecessors (to this point), and he has empowered Elon Musk and DOGE to begin massive audits of government agencies. My thoughts on Trump’s first days are mixed, so I decided to break down Trump’s early decisions into three distinct categories: what he is doing well, what he is doing poorly, and what he is doing that could be destructive.

The Good:

1. It is hard to deny that Trump is able to negotiate his desires more effectively than Biden. Already, the United States pressured Hamas to re-start ceasefire negotiations, convinced Panama to lessen its involvement with China, encouraged Zelensky to consider a weapons for minerals deal, and secured the release of Marc Fogel from Russia. These actions showcase Trump’s ability to strongarm his way into a position of power vis-à-vis our friends and adversaries.

2. Trump is already pushing for more American investment in Artificial Intelligence at a time when competition is rising. China’s development of DeepSeek AI sent shockwaves through global markets, and we need a President that is investing heavily into maintaining a competitive edge. His decision to pursue AI investment and expand domestic chip production (similarly to Biden) are encouraging moves towards maintaining a competitive edge in this market.

3. I do sympathize with the administration’s early efforts to cut costs/bloat within the American bureaucracy. Bloat is accrued over time, and this bloat can lead to inefficiency, waste, and low productivity. These are all things that should be avoided when it comes to running the United States of America, and I find conversations around spending cuts to be refreshing after almost five years of massive government expenditure.

The Bad:

1. Trump’s tariffs are one of the larger issues I have with his administration. Large-scale tariffs on imported goods will raise prices on key imported products across the board. This means higher prices for groceries, home construction, and more. Damage will remain even if Trump eventually removes these tariffs or simply uses them as a blunt instrument of diplomacy to enact his policy agenda. Aggressive tariff policy could also influence US-friendly nation-states to look towards China for assistance to offset the impact of tariffs on their own populations. High tariffs also create a culture of decreased economic integration, raising the potential for conflict and disagreement.

2. Immigration policy is going in the opposite direction of what I hope and dream. It is true that we have an unprecedented number of illegal migrants crossing the border; however, I refuse to believe that the answer should be heavily curtailing legal immigration or instituting a massive deportation regime. American birthrates are declining, and our education system is becoming more and more degraded. It is imperative that the United States retains amazing talent in order to compete in a world that is increasingly dangerous and complex. This can only be accomplished through a combination of higher birthrates, higher legal immigration, and a deeper investment into innovation within the educational system. Gutting the Department of Education, limiting immigration policy, and pushing to end birthright citizenship only accomplish the opposite.

3. Blind loyalty in leadership is a terrible idea when it comes to running effective presidential administrations. Abraham Lincoln purposefully built a ‘Team of Rivals’ to encourage discussion and disagreement in order to enforce effective solutions to complex problems. In contrast, Trump is building a ‘Team of Loyalists’ who are more committed to the man than the ideals of conservatism or constitutional governance. Trump is looking to purge rather than discuss and unite rather than innovate when it comes to his cabinet, and I am worried about the implications for effective governance in the long term.

The Ugly:

1. The dismantling of USAID and other government agencies may not have been terrible if done over time. However, the level and speed of these cuts are leading to widespread chaos, confusion, and incompetence across the international aid space. Layoffs like these also disregard the bounty of strong work USAID is accomplishing through reputable NGOs. AID's mitigation in Africa? Gone. Clean water in Southeast Asia? Say goodbye! Food for Sudanese refugees? Halted. This does not mention the thousands of humanitarians that are left jobless and embittered. Each of these individuals contains a wealth of institutional knowledge and skill that cannot be easily replaced. I find it difficult to believe that this is the only way to reduce government inefficiency, and I wish that grace and discernment were pursued prior to overt destruction and unpredictability. Unfortunately, USAID is just the tip of a larger iceberg when it comes to these layoffs and disruptions. Again, I am all for reducing waste and inefficiency… yet, I also desire a process that handles these sensitive decisions with grace and tact. That is clearly not taking place.

2. The lack of congressional give and take with Trump is baffling to me. Trump’s first term required him to deal with Republican lawmakers, resulting in limitations on Trump’s excesses. Early congressional action seems to be completely fine with most of Trump’s decisions, even if they strip away power from the legislative branch. In the short term, this may not have dramatically negative consequences; however, this is setting a precedent that is eerily similar to prior democratic legislatures freely handing over power to an increasingly powerful executive figure (i.e., the Roman Republic, or Victor Orban’s Hungary). The fruit of these actions may not appear in this administration, but I guarantee that the executive will only become more powerful as a result, lessening the influence of the American voter and stripping away the ability for the legislature to act as a check on executive overreach.

3. Trump’s statements regarding the forcible displacement of up to 2 million Palestinians and the US occupation of the strip seem completely detached from his rhetoric of ‘America First.’ Unfortunately, Trump’s statements fall in line with Bush and Obama, who placed American boots on the ground in the Middle East at the expense of American lives and resources. These missions ended in mission creep and failure, and I wholeheartedly believe that a US mission to Gaza would hold the same fate. Maybe this is an opening gambit by Trump to wriggle concessions out of a plurality of Arab states, or maybe he is being serious. Either way, it is a massive gamble with multiple avenues for high costs and American deaths. It also disregards the intercultural difficulties plaguing the Israeli and Palestinian populations. Hopefully, these statements are bluster in an attempt to think about the Palestinian issue in a new way because prior strategies have not worked either. However, I tend to be pessimistic whenever it comes to American adventurism within the Middle East.

Ultimately, Trump’s first few weeks can be seen as a mixed bag. There are areas for hope, especially for many individuals who built the MAGA movement, and there are areas for concern for individuals who prefer the status quo and stability over unpredictability. We shall see what the remainder of Trump’s first 100 days will hold, but I think we can all agree that Trump will not be a typical second-term lame duck president. He is seeking a historical legacy, and only time will tell if it will be famous or infamous in nature.