Whether you’re filled with dread or riding high on optimism about the early days of Trump’s second term, it’s wise to keep Herb Stein’s insight in mind: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” Though it seems obvious, this principle offers a valuable perspective, whether you’re dealing with the stock market, navigating adolescent angst, or updating yourself on political dramas.
For those closely monitoring these events, Trump’s rapid and audacious tactics have revitalized the phrase “drinking from a firehose.” It’s akin to the teams of lawyers wrestling with legal challenges against Elon Musk’s DOGE or OMB Director Russell Vought—they’re trying to swap a tire on a vehicle that hasn’t stopped moving.
Judging these efforts isn’t easy, especially when Trump’s ardent supporters rally behind everything and his critics oppose just as uniformly. Personally, I separate my views into two categories: some initiatives where both the policy and process receive my approval, like the executive order related to trans athletes and school sports. Others, however, might have policies I support, but the methods used seem dubious or unconstitutional, like the executive order attempting to revoke birthright citizenship. Even if I’m ambivalent about the objective, the method seems overtly unconstitutional.
The unfolding drama under Musk’s influence in dismantling government brings all these tensions into play, with the courts and Congress left to ultimately decide these battles.
The operative word here is “eventually.” The frenetic pace of the past weeks isn’t sustainable. As noted by Yuval Levin, my colleague at the American Enterprise Institute, each new administration holds the reins of the political narrative initially. With the first Trump term being a notable exception where Trump seemed caught by surprise at his win, the norm is that new administrations execute a carefully laid out plan, creating the illusion of complete control.
It’s not only about their strategies. Freshly elected presidents inspire allegiance and enthusiasm within their ranks, while opposition parties are left to regroup and rethink their strategies. The media, eager to build relationships, often covers the new administration extensively.
But inevitably, this phase concludes, whether seen as a positive honeymoon or something less appealing. External events demand the White House’s defensive strategies, such as the stock market’s reaction to Trump’s tariff threats on Canada and Mexico, prompting a retreat from these plans.
To be fair, the beginning of Trump 2.0 amplifies this pattern we’ve seen before. Soon enough, Trump will need to guide the narrowly GOP-majority Congress to approve budgets, address the debt ceiling, and advance his legislative agenda. This shift will require Republicans to transform from commentators to true lawmakers. Meanwhile, the antagonism Trump faces from Democrats will seriously hinder any chance for bipartisan laws. The spotlight will inevitably make its way down Pennsylvania Avenue, testing Trump’s flexibility in navigating this landscape.
Simultaneously, the judicial system serves as a reminder of the boundaries of presidential power. Though the legal process is slow, it follows its own dictates. If Trump challenges judicial authority following any legal setbacks, whether through non-compliance or harsh rhetoric, the political landscape could shift considerably. Overreaching could lead to fractures within Trump’s coalition, unsettle financial markets, and alienate some of his base without gaining new support.
Clearly, Trump envisions the presidency as a pseudo-monarchical role with vast powers. He is eager to explore this theory, though he seems more invested in projecting power than exercising it. If overreaching implies weakness, he might prefer a subtler approach while still appearing strong.
In any case, the time when he appears to dominate the agenda unimpeded is likely to end sooner rather than later.
