In May 2017, a few months after the first Trump administration, I wrote an op-ed that his powerlessness was so obvious and destructive that he should remove him from the office through the 25th Amendment to the Constitution.
This is a popular column, but its arguments are not well put forward. Trump's first White House remains unusually chaotic, and Trump remains himself – but his presidency is stable enough relative to the first few months that the demands of powerlessness and solicit constitutional intervention are not suitable for the fact. My column is written in the spirit of “can’t continue.” But that does continue – not only that, it's progressing in economic and foreign policy than I thought, so much so that in Joe Biden's years (who became a model for Amendment 25!), voters have nostalgia for Trump's achievements.
There are many moments for observers of the Trump phenomenon – moments, his fault seems to have led to some irrevocable crashes, or it seems that he ended politically forever. These judgments proved too early. Trump lures fate again and again and tells the story alive.
That's why when he returned to the office, I vowed to avoid proclaiming disasters too early. I would criticize, but at least in the first year, I wouldn't act as if nothing could be compensated.
The solution was thoroughly tested this week. Neither Trump’s first policy brought the full risks involved in his huge trade war—at least the threat of recession, but also a potential threat to the United States’ global status and basic solvency. Even if the country-by-state tariffs are suspended, the scale of China's trade war and the general uncertainty caused by Trump's whip predict economic pain without a clear path to rebound.
It's a very bad place for a president who always relies on good economic resonance, and a very bad place against the backdrop of other wrong turns and disappointments. I wrote in December about the fruitful balance between Trumpism’s populism and technology-liberal factions, and a productive balance is needed between the spirit of JD Vance and the spirit of Elon Musk. I imagined it at the time that it was personal tax policies, which were related to a large amount of deregulation – but instead, so far, the balance included the reckless trade war on populism and Musk's crusades to reduce the number of government heads without considering government capabilities. This is a synthesis, but not a happy synthesis.
At the same time, everything the government does, it is overwhelmed with a dose of intensity, as if determined to alienate any part of its alliance that is not entirely committed to Maga reasons. This is not enough for deportation; we need to deport people to prisons in El Salvador without committing any crime against them. It is not enough to ask our NATO allies to take more burdens. The requirement must carry a roar, a trade war and a fixation of Greenland. This is not enough to clear the DEI program; we must also attack scientific research and humanitarian assistance.
All of this constitutes a very bad trajectory, and the fact that Trump has survived the bad trajectory before does not mean that this fact is doomed to be reversed. Perhaps this time he was too cocoon and unbound, surrounded by devotees, and his confidence in his place among the decisive figures of history (one should tell him about their often unpleasant endgame) toward stability and popularity.
But if he or his consultant does want to guide in a different way, then we are still at the moment when the course corrects relatively simple. The economy is not in recession, and Trump is underwater, but not deeply unpopular. This means he has a choice now and if things get worse, he won't have one. This means that if he is not reckless, he can still adopt his preferred policy.
He can be taxed; he just doesn't have the scale and the “liberation day” tariffs designed by cachehand. He can be deported; he only needs to accept moral style and restrictions imposed by the Supreme Court. He could have the version of the Ministry of Efficiency, just refocusing on deregulation and should focus on it from the very beginning. He could have Yes-Men and Flatterers; he just needed some people in the cabinet to say, “Maybe not, sir.”
He could even court Greenland and Denizens. He just can't threaten to catch it.
Throughout his process as a major force in our politics, Trump demonstrates what you call temporary disciplines, associated with the primitive survival instincts and prevailing winds.
If these instincts are still with him, it's time to listen to them and remember that while Fortune has her favorites, the nemesis is always waiting.
