From the series Chronicles of the new American nationalism
Donald Trump’s political agenda has been dictated by the tempo of the dozens of executive orders, memoranda, and proclamations he has signed, challenging international partners abroad, and Congress, the States of the Union, and the bureaucracy at home. The execution of some orders has already been temporarily suspended by federal judges, while the chaos caused by a memorandum led the administration itself to withdraw it. Other rulings are expected from the courts at the request of citizens, NGOs, and States.
Furthermore, as James Politi of the Financial Times notes, “the result of his political success” in the elections is that Trump will have to satisfy “a much more diverse political coalition” than in his first term. Ross Douthat, a conservative commentator for The New York Times, also believes that “at least until the Democratic Party gets up off the mat, this means the most important conflicts in American politics are happening within the court of Trump”.
Conflicting Factions
An “obvious” conflict for Douthat is the one between MAGA (Make America Great Again) “populism” and “Silicon Valley libertarianism”. Elon Musk said he is ready for “war” to defend the visas with which many companies import skilled workers. Steve Bannon, one of Trump’s main strategists during his first term, has pledged to “take down” Musk and the “broligarchs” of the PayPal Mafia, who do not defend the “Nation-State”.
Additionally, according to Douthat, a clash over foreign policy could arise in the executive. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz are considered to be “hawks” on the Middle East. The Pentagon top brass, however, includes Michael DiMino, a CIA analyst who is cautious towards Tehran, and Elbridge Colby, head of policy planning and author of the first Trump presidency’s National Defense Strategy. Colby considers China to be the main threat and the Middle East a secondary theatre and he does not want the US to be distracted by a war there.
However, there are “a few more internal wars to watch”, continues Douthat. Trump’s “court” is full of financiers from the “elite”, such as Scott Bessent at the Treasury and Howard Lutnick at Commerce, for the likes of whom Wall Street should not be disturbed by an excess of protectionism.
According to the Financial Times, Bessent had prepared a gradual monthly increase in tariffs of 2.5%, to give companies time to adapt and offer partners the opportunity to negotiate. But Trump, with emergency powers, imposed a sharp increase in levies on goods from China (10%) and from Mexico and Canada (25%).
The reaction of the markets and partners constituted a natural counterweight, provoking a reaction from the members of the administration. Peter Navarro, senior advisor to the White House and a strong supporter of tariffs, emerged as a “key figure” working with Trade Representative (USTR) Jamieson Greer. Lutnick, playing a “starring role”, apparently met with Canadian and Mexican officials even before the tariffs were imposed. When the tariffs were suspended by Trump, Navarro praised both Lutnick and Bessent, pointing to the “immediate results” obtained in the negotiations.
Challenges from the States
Rana Foroohar, a commentator at the Financial Times, writes: “As fast as the new president can sign executive orders, individual state governments are stepping up to challenge them in court. The upshot will be a more confusing environment for business and a richer one for lawyers”. The States governed by the Democrats “look for ways to shield themselves” from the incursions with which the federal power would like to change their regulations on immigration, production, and “monopoly power”, or make “massive cuts” to subsidies for businesses, health, and emergency services.
Moreover, Foroohar notes, the Democrats govern some of the States with the highest levels of consumption. California, Illinois, Massachusetts and New York “can create strong demand signals for the rest of the country” in favour of certain production standards, which companies adapt to despite the costs, “even if the president doesn’t like it”.
Opposition in the Senate
Former Republican leader Mitch McConnell has retired, but his term has not expired. He outlined a foreign policy strategy with an essay in Foreign Affairs and opposed some of Trump’s nominations. The GOP holds a slim majority (53-47) and the shift of a handful of them can make all the difference.
Matt Gaetz, Trump’s choice for the Justice Department, avoided Senate scrutiny by withdrawing his nomination. Deeming Peter Hegseth unsuitable as head of the Pentagon, McConnell voted against his nomination, together with Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine), forcing Vice-President J. D. Vance to cast a tie-breaking vote. Finally, McConnell, a man who survived polio in the years before the vaccine, was the only GOP senator to vote against Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the vaccine sceptic who has become Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Chuck Schumer, leader of the Democratic senators, urged by six governors, some of them of national fame such as Tim Walz (Minnesota), asked Trump to withdraw the nomination of Russ Vought as head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Vought believes that the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which reaffirmed the power of Congress over public spending, is “unconstitutional”. He supports the idea that the executive branch has the power to seize funds approved by Congress and to reform the so-called administrative state. “We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected”, he said in 2024, and that “when they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work”. In an essay for Project 2025 of the Heritage Foundation, he called for a president with the “boldness to bend or break the bureaucracy” and the “self-denial to [...] send power away from Washington” and “back to America’s families, faith communities, local governments, and States”.
Bureaucratic-media tangle
Through the president’s executive orders and the actions of the Department of Government Efficiency led by Musk in liaison with the OMB, the administration is attacking the prerogatives of departments and their officials, even at senior levels. An executive order has frozen the funding of USAID, the foreign development agency, whose goal, writes the Wall Street Journal, is “to make friends and influence countries in the American interest”, through funding and NGOs.
The attack on USAID has been toned down by Marco Rubio, the head of the State Department on which the agency depends. Moreover, USAID was founded by an act of Congress, and in the controversy one of the claims is that it would be unconstitutional to dissolve it and to cut its programmes, which are mostly financed by other acts of Congress. The WSJ “wouldn’t mind” if USAID “vanished” but warns that the “uproar” around the operation “is a taste of the pushback that Messrs. Musk and Trump are going to face as they work to shrink and reform the executive branch”. The conservative newspaper predicts a revolt of the departments, hand in hand with the opposition newspapers.
Lotta Comunista, February 2025