Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LAST UPDATE | 7 Feb
THE 47TH PRESIDENT of the United States hasn’t been in the White House for three weeks. Yet an awful lot has happened since Donald Trump was inaugurated on 20 January. Whether one’s overarching opinion is positive or negative – there’s little room for in between – the early days of his tenure have been astonishing at every conceivable level.
A flurry of executive orders and policy pronouncements have flowed that could prove profoundly impactful, both domestically and internationally. President Trump was crystal clear during the campaign: he planned to mount a crusade to make America great again, no matter if he needed to tear up the conventional rule book to do so. He hasn’t merely torn it asunder; he has burnt it to a crisp.
At home, he is using the inherent powers of the presidency and the bully pulpit that attaches to it to fundamentally change government and how it functions; to set the stage to punish those he perceives have wronged him; and to eradicate each component of what he deems the radical left agenda. This is all with the assistance and encouragement of the patently malevolent Elon Musk.
Abroad, on the one hand, President Trump is living up to the politically potent America First mantra he is so enamoured of by discontinuing as much foreign aid as possible and being tough on tariffs and trade. On the other, he has sketched out, in his uniquely meandering and bombastic style, a remarkably expansionist, arguably militarist vision.
Make Canada the 51st state. “Persuade” Greenland to become a US territory. Recapture the Panama Canal. Sanction the International Criminal Court for “targeting” the US and Israel. Most provocatively – despite attempts by figures within the administration to temper their boss’s uncompromising rhetoric – resolve the vexed conflict in the Middle East by compelling Egypt, Jordan, et al to allow displaced Palestinians to immigrate there where communities will be built to accommodate them and where they can enjoy a lasting peace. Simultaneously, the US will assume an “ownership position” of Gaza with its “very valuable Mediterranean waterfront” and convert the strip into the “Riviera” of the region.
The collective reaction of the rest of the world can be summed up in a single word: outrage. Prominent US-allied politicians and diplomats anticipate a dangerous abandonment of generally agreed norms and principles which, although quite imperfect, are vastly preferable to a leap into a perilous unknown.
Legal scholars delineate impending breaches of international law aplenty and fret that President Trump will have even less respect for key tenets and central institutions than his predecessor, George W Bush, did in the Iraq war period. Ordinary observers envisage the spectre of the ugly American. In their minds, a wilfully uninformed blowhard of a commander-in-chief, convinced of his country’s “manifest destiny,” poses an immeasurable threat.
But Trump came into office a second time cognisant that he would not win any popularity contests beyond the borders of the US. The truth is that he isn’t that bothered by what outsiders think. A big part of him probably derives pleasure from their scorn. What will be crucial for him and his fellow Republicans in the weeks, months and years ahead, however, is the evolving judgment of the American people. A few musings in this vein follow.
The “u word” – uncertainty – is inescapable in this analysis. Notably, when it comes to the 78-year-old’s expressions of global intent, the response in the land of my birth has been comparatively muted, including from his foes. That may be attributable to prior experience that his bark is worse than his bite, a resigned “let’s wait and see” attitude, an indifference to what goes on elsewhere, prevalent fatigue in the wake of a chaotic 2024, a sense that, having vanquished Kamala Harris decisively, President Trump should be given a chance to exercise his mandate – or a mixture of the five factors.
This is especially evident when assessing from afar the internal coverage of and comment on what is regularly characterised as a proposal for ethnic cleansing by external political leaders, academic experts and media pundits, who are aghast at the president’s troubling and unrealistic “solution” for Gaza. It is a news story in the US, though it is not dominating discourse.
Progressive Democrats have indicated that they are disgusted and will employ the tools in their arsenal to stop it. Republicans reportedly label it “crazy stuff” and are concerned that it could incite a new generation of terrorists. But they are frank only behind closed doors and cautiously receptive when the microphone is on, fearful of offending their base, which is ultra-faithful to Donald Trump. It is currently difficult to discern exactly how the members of the wider electorate, who are repulsed by decades of hostilities and not as inclined to sympathise or empathise with the Palestinians as their transatlantic neighbours here in Ireland are, feel.
In this milieu, two questions rise to the surface. First, will Trump’s rather surprising emphasis on foreign policy precipitate a split in the MAGA movement: those who would accompany their hero off a cliff with zero hesitation on one team and the steadfast isolationists who might assert credibly that they’ve been betrayed on the other? Second, how numerous and loyal is the anti-establishment, non-aligned cadre of disillusioned citizens who are happy for this man to do things differently?
Returning stateside, President’s Trump’s controversial steps have attracted substantially more attention there. His supporters appear pleased. That said, it remains to be seen how some elements of an unlikely, unwieldy coalition can and will absorb the consequences of myriad dramatic pivots that will not lift all boats, to describe the knock-on effects euphemistically. The old maxim in American parlance – “voters are ideological conservatives, but practical liberals” – bears repeating.
As Democrats hold their fire to an extent in refuting the incessant, scattered utterances and subsequent posturing on world affairs from the man they still can’t believe they lost to, they have been pushing back on what they contend are his retrograde, discriminatory and unconstitutional initiatives at home. Many on the party’s left flank are roaring at the top of their lungs that they are not doing enough to resist Trump and Co.
This frustration, which emanates from their fury at what is occurring, is understandable. Yet Democrats have to be unerringly strategic and shrewd in their opposition, with a razor-sharp focus on the mid-terms in 2026. The GOP’s advantage in the US House of Representatives is tenuous; Democrats united are a force to be reckoned with. They can prevent, or at the very least stall, extreme ideas from becoming law.
In mapping avenues of attack, the sentiments of moderate Maine Congressman Jared Golden are among those worth heeding: “I’ve been getting a lot of calls in the past few days, and the interesting thing is none of them are about Donald Trump. They’re all about Elon Musk. My constituents, and a majority of this country, put Trump in the White House, not this unelected, weirdo billionaire.” By contrast, the ridiculous identity politics and related car-crash messaging that were to the fore at the recent Democratic National Committee meeting warrant ignoring.
The party’s stalwarts have to pick their battles wisely for the next while. And then they must do whatever is required to win them. President Trump’s frenetic pace to date shows that he means business. Regardless of one’s perspective of its merits, further upheaval of all sorts looms large on the horizon.
Larry Donnelly is a Boston lawyer, a Law Lecturer at the University of Galway and a political columnist with TheJournal.ie.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say