The Trump administration has several major foreign and domestic policy priorities, many of which are unclear, contradictory, difficult to implement and inadequate. The Trump administration is unable to grasp contradictions in the economic blueprint. The most straightforward method of bringing down prices, which was a key issue for voters during the election, would have been a combination of trade deals and government investments to support local industries. Instead, a bizarre tariff policy based on trade deficits (which appears to be the same formula generated on ChatGPT) has thrown markets into a complete panic. Prices are likely to go up.
Another area of the new administration’s policy changes is international security. After a speech by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in March, which indicated a lack of American willpower towards countering Russian expansionist efforts, the reaction in Europe was hardly palatable. A theory of ‘kill switches’ in American-made equipment led to a surge in the share prices of European defense contractors Leonardo, SAAB, Rheinmetall, BAE systems, Rolls Royce and Thales group. The result is hardly ideal for the US, as it indicates that the trade deficit with the EU will continue to widen as American defense firms lose a historically vital set of clients. On the bright side, at least the administration managed to raise the share prices of some companies.
Perhaps the more bizarre set of foreign policy goals this administration has is in regards to the Arctic. The apparent desire of the administration, shown recently through a trip by Vice President JD Vance to annex Greenlandled to a hostile series of responses from Danish leadership. Vance retorted, “You have not done a good job by the people of Greenland.” The U.S. commander of the multinational military facility at Pituffik was fired after allegedly sending out an email to all personnel stating that the comments by the vice president did not reflect the base. If the US seeks to maintain it’s presence in Greenland, perhaps it would be best not to throw accusations at the owners of the territory.
An unexpected development in the administration would be the lacking reaction to the Signalgate scandal. So far, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz has not been fired, which is strange considering the President’s demands to prosecute the leaker of his 2019 phone call with the Ukrainian president. This lack of response undermines the administration’s February claims of meritocracy. Neither the director of national intelligence, the secretary of defense, the director of the CIA, the secretary of state or vice president have resigned.
If there is a contradiction in approach which has been most damaging to the country, it would be the attitude towards the federal bureaucracy. Firstly, for an administration which values a trimmed workforce, then it is a strange to repeatedly support states’ rights on areas such as education, given that experience in other democracies has shown that it is more efficient for the national government to handle more of the tasks on account of gaining the benefits of economies of scale. Put simply, there are proportionately fewer staff to support the main workforce when there are fewer offices which each cover a wider area. The federal government is also composed of institutions which are less efficient when lacking key personnel. Yosemite National Park laid off its only locksmith, which risks decreasing efficiency by forcing other park staff to each play a greater role within the infrastructure. It is also hypocritical for a President who supported tax cuts to complain about the size of the government’s deficit.
While it is perhaps too early to see if the new administration can find methods to overcome these contradictions, or some adjustment of objectives and acceptable tradeoffs is made, it still appears that the administration has some reconsidering to do regarding it’s stated objectives.
