Presidential candidates make promises that often fall by the wayside. This has always been the case in American politics; we don't think less of our candidates for it - unless the pledges were so significant that they carried the candidate across the finish line. The governmental gridlock we value in America is better for killing promises than fulfilling them.
Yet despite this precedent, Donald Trump has been a dramatic outlier. He began his second presidential term with such ferocity that it hardly seemed like watching politics at all. As chaos unfolds and Democrats are checked at every turn by unanticipated wild cards, and while Republicans offer their unity or their begrudging deference, the events of late read more like the ending of The Godfather than real life.
Above the chaos, three issues seem to have topped the list of President Trump's reforms in Washington, at least as far as my left-leaning POLITICO newsletters are concerned.
Elon Musk and his DOGE took center stage almost at once. With each swing of the axe, it has become apparent that as an executioner, he is one of the President's most powerful tools. With executive blessings, they have set in motion the largest gutting of government bureaucracy in a very long time, possibly in American history, and it began within moments of President Trump's swearing-in. Democrats have, in the days since, been enraged beyond reason. One look at Chuck Schumer or N.J. Representative McIver's February speeches before the doors of the Treasury Department conveys the extent of their disarray. The once-entrenched Democrats are in a complete rout; nearly all of the minority's countermeasures have failed, and what few defenses they've retained lack real authority. The only hope remaining for the Democrats is that the federal judges will delay Trump's agenda. Still, the Judicial Branch is rapidly becoming overburdened by lawsuits and challenges against the Executive, and one wonders how quickly they will run out of judges. Strategically, Elon and the DOGE are functioning quite well as a heat shield for the president; Elon has gone on record saying that he doesn't mind going down as the bad guy. Indeed, the press lately has had more venom for the Tesla CEO than for the president, who they once daily compared to Hitler.
Playing second chair in Washington events, though nearly as urgent, the President has shifted our trade policy paradigm from embarrassingly high levels of impotence to a maverick, bullish antagonism. Though his self-confidence needs no extolling, witnessing Trump's shrewdness in our trade negotiations, especially after seeing how Biden floundered, is endlessly refreshing. Some presidents are born orators, others great tacticians, but President Trump has no peers in negotiating deals, even when he stands alone. No statesman, organization, or dictator seems able to defy him outright; the best they can do is smile sickly and hope that the agenda passes them by.
The previous administration showed no backbone in trade or diplomatic relations for fear of offending our 'allies,' but those days are gone. Within hours of his inauguration, allies and enemies alike have witnessed the greatest economy on earth growing some teeth. When faced with tariffs and anti-dumping measures to offset our trade deficits, all have paused to reconsider their priorities. Some countries have fallen in line: Taiwan, Argentina, and Mexico have either made concessions out of good faith or pledged to buy American. Others have chosen the path of resistance and slow economic downturn. Still, while the Democrats squawk that switching to protectionist policies may bring short-term price increases, they conveniently ignore the fact that our economy has already been stagnating for four years—the direct result of embracing weakness as a trade strategy.
The press has incessantly described the President's tariffs as antagonistic or uncooperative, criticizing how freely he threatens to use them, only to walk back deadlines or recant after negotiating with Canada and Mexico. But the threat of economic disruption is merely the projection of strength. China or Russia would not hesitate to engage in hard negotiations because they make no pretense of holding a stacked deck. For four years, most of the world has run a grift on the taxpayers of The United States, bleeding it dry through lousy trade deals and one-sided negotiations to bankroll third-world defense budgets, social programs, and Marxist agendas. It only makes sense that there would be outrage once Americans grow a backbone and cut them off. Perhaps we had, for a time, forgotten how much leverage our dollar has over the world. The sanctimony and manufactured outrage from Democrats merely confirm that power is being restored to the taxpayer.
The third issue identified by the press is the proliferation of 'under-qualified' (more like unaffiliated) personnel that Republicans seem to have taken in under their umbrella. DOGE's young staffers are featured almost daily as they romp around Washington, slashing budgets, downsizing entire agencies, and exposing the deepest recesses of our bureaucracy to public scrutiny. Democrats have ceaselessly argued that this poses security risks; while true to a degree, it also brings the many tendrils of the bureaucracy to light. Just think how many Americans knew their tax dollars were funding USAID programs, like gender reassignment surgeries for foreigners before the agency's coverage blew up.
Many cabinet appointments have been subject to the same criticism: Kash Patel, Tulsi Gabbard, and RFK Jr have received disproportionate heat from Democrats. Where the media says 'underqualified,' I think a better term would be 'outsider.' The volume of outsiders entering into the fold should be marginally concerning for conservatives, if only on principle, but hiring from the outside seems to have paid dividends. The first month of Trump's presidency has been unlike anything in American politics. He could not have accomplished this were it not for the lieutenants he has made of outsiders. We shall see what great things await his agency appointments, but it promises to be exciting no matter what happens.
Aside from the big three, a litany of issues would have dominated headlines during his first term, but Trump has led such a powerful charge into the establishment that what was once outrageous now seems mundane by comparison. There are too many headlines for even the bloated mainstream media to cover them all, which only lends the President even more momentum. With the MSM overwhelmed, his agenda marches forward undaunted. They're calling it a blitzkrieg, always vigilant for some way to bring it back to the same tired old fascist comparisons they've always made, but in this case, I think the term applies. In a few short weeks, the bureaucracy has collapsed upon itself, and as he shows no signs of stopping, there will undoubtedly be more great things in store.
As a consequence of the blitzkrieg, the media has focused on covering DOGE, trade policies, and the star-studded cast of deplorable outsiders but has been almost silent on the expansionist attitudes coming from the White House. It began before the election when Trump repeatedly and publicly contemplated the purchase of Greenland; if executed properly, such a purchase could be a big win for America and firmly establish a geographic legacy for Trump. The purchase of Alaska has been great for the Union; it stands to reason that buying Greenland could be similarly beneficial. It wasn't a complex process when we bought Alaska over a century ago: a handful of men in suits signed documents shook hands and went home. But in the information age, few matters are so straightforward, and Greenland is no exception. The public does not often support acquiring foreign territory, and Denmark is not keen on giving up their golden goose.
Were this the extent of Trump's expansionary ambitions, they could be dismissed as mere eccentricity, which the President has been known for. However, when he announced shortly before the inauguration that he would regain control of the Panama Canal, it became clear that something more than eccentricity was at play. His public announcements are not just saber rattling or trolling. He betrays a deep, strategic concern for American defense when he cites that our national security depends on safeguarding the Arctic, ending Chinese malfeasance, and projecting our control over the hemisphere.
Since Panama, he has continued with the expansion talks. Threatening to annex Canada, renaming The Gulf of Mexico to The Gulf of America, and teasing the 'Riviera of the Middle East' atop the ruins of Gaza are actions designed to project an unapologetic strength on the world stage. China's Belt and Road Initiative attempts the same goal, although the Chinese prefer loansharking and market manipulation to honest negotiations. Russia desires the same out of its war in Ukraine. The projection of Russian power has often required a show of force, never mind that, in this case, it did not anticipate NATO using the war as an excuse to test out the latest innovations in Western defense technology.
Barring the annexation of Canada (which he would likely attempt if he saw a diplomatic approach), President Trump has been faithful to his expansion agenda. His son, Donald Jr., visited Greenland a few weeks ago to get people talking about Americanizing. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been on a South American negotiation circuit since his first appointment. American expansion is back, and unlike the spineless oil wars in the Middle East or the Vietnams of the last century, these acquisitions seem to have some strategic merit.
One of the President's top concerns appears to be safeguarding the hemisphere against Chinese and Russian pressure. Controlling Greenland would protect the Arctic and thwart Russian expansion. Annexing Canada would further safeguard the Arctic and eliminate an avenue for the Chinese or Russians to invade by land. Securing Panama would split the world in half; any enemies of the United States would need to sail past Cape Horn to reach the other side.
The American president finds himself at a unique crossroads for our time. There are few ways for a leader to destroy his public approval faster than reckless expansionism. Land grabbing is a tenuous affair because the president must balance the obvious strategic upsides and the unpredictable public reaction. Panama, for example, struggles with an overwhelmingly corrupt government and militant police force, according to a 2021 report by the US Department of State. With corrupt officials and a constant threat from cartels, most Panamanian citizens have favorable attitudes toward the United States. A further report by the DoS Office of the Historian found that the majority of anti-American sentiments in Panama are manufactured by the corrupt Panamanian government and communist party members in a deliberate attempt at procuring consent for isolationist or Sino-centric policies. Regaining control of the canal or even turning Panama into a United States territory could ostensibly liberate many impoverished Panamanians from the hands of a minority of wealthy, corrupt communists.
Similarly, Greenland sits in the crosshairs of most world powers due to its rare-earth deposits, oil fields, and unique strategic location between hemispheres, at the gateway to the Arctic naval passages. Should the United States fail to acquire Greenland, Denmark would probably fail to project significant enough power to dissuade Russia from invading. China has already inserted itself into the Greenlandic economy, purchasing land and creating shell companies as it did in the Bahamas and is trying to do in the United States. If either foreign power gained control of Greenland, its citizens would doubtless be far worse off than if they became Americans. Further exacerbating the issue is the growing demand for Greenlandic independence, which seems short-sighted when you begin to evaluate whether a population of 56,000 could defend an island larger than Alaska without a dime for their defense budget.
Even if Greenland passed an independence referendum, they would eventually need to pledge fealty to one superpower, or they would most likely be annexed.
Even Canada, the most outlandish and unusual of Trump's expansion agendas, has strategic considerations. In his Super Bowl interview, Trump confirmed how serious he is about potentially annexing Canada. Justin Trudeau has also confirmed behind closed doors that the Canadian government sees the threat as genuine. Between the vast Canadian resources and the defense considerations of the northern American border, even annexing our neighbors has gone from unthinkable to mildly indefensible. Conditions could change overnight. If Canada were found to be in bed with China (any more than it already is) and offered a genuine threat to national security, the situation could change dramatically.
These headlines are rife with cognitive dissonance. It is hard to imagine the boundaries of our nations changing significantly, but that is a modern luxury, not a guaranteed right. There will undoubtedly be consequences for the United States finding its spine; the ever-present threats of Russia and China may pivot from trade and diplomacy towards martial aggression. Both have recently been pushing our boundaries, flying nuclear-capable bombers into American airspace in a joint exercise off the Alaskan coast and conducting live fire "training exercises" mere miles off the Taiwanese coast.
While these incursions have not led to armed conflicts yet, the world is moving away from neoliberal international relations towards classical realism. This shift brings with it the necessity of power, manifesting in shows of force and hard negotiations. Trump has proven in his first days that he will defend America on whatever front is necessary, by whatever means necessary. As the global stage evolves, we may be required to set aside our modern aversion to assertiveness in order to defend ourselves and our homeland. The other world powers would not hesitate to do so. While American citizens are proud of being generally peace-loving, democratic people (not so much our politicians), the game is changing, and the consequences for being late to adapt will be severe.
Comments