In an often-divided world, can we agree on one thing? It’s difficult to make sense of the apparent contradictions wrapped up in the Donald Trump presidency. One day tariffs on some US trading partners are on. The next day – maybe even the same day – they are off. Then on again.
One day the US is backing Ukraine. Then vital military intelligence to Ukraine’s forces is cut.
Then there is talk about annexing Greenland, the Panama Canal and even Canada. And then there’s the Elon Enigma. Mr Musk is hiring and firing government employees.
Then, last week Mr Trump said that hiring and firing will now be done by those he has put in charge of various government departments, not by Mr Musk. Confused? Well, maybe it’s time to speak plainly. These are not “apparent contradictions”. They are real contradictions and some see an underlying Orwellian mindset.
George Orwell wrote in 1984 that “Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania,” when the opposite had previously been true. In his novel “that past was alterable”. Yet even in Orwell’s fiction, inconsistencies in U-turns in policies were not a daily event.
The cliche is that we must not take Mr Trump “literally” but take him “seriously”. Perhaps over the next four years, we need to take Mr Trump’s inconsistencies both seriously and literally. Inconsistency, contradictions and uncertainties so far appear to be Mr Trump’s governing strategy. We need to get used to this. This view was echoed recently by a lead story in the New York Times. The headline read “You Can’t Pin Him Down: Trump’s Contradictions Are His Ultimate Cover”.
The article goes on to say that Mr Trump’s “shifting positions and outright lies have presented the American public with duelling narratives at every turn”. True, and as diplomats and political leaders across the world are noticing, confusion is not seen within the Trump White House as a flaw, but as an asset.
And this has profound implications for European security, Ukraine’s future, the Middle East, China, Canada, Mexico and indeed every part of the world where the US has an interest, perhaps even ultimately including Russia – although so far Mr Trump appears to be consistent in his praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin and the policies of the Kremlin.
Insider reports from Washington in the past few days reveal that Trump cabinet members finally – if politely – challenged the president over the role of Elon Musk. Mr Trump appears to have (for now at least) limited Mr Musk’s powers. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is one of the key Trump team members said to be less than awe-struck by Mr Musk’s talents.
When I was a journalist in Washington, I covered numerous US presidencies and I cannot recall any in recent years having reports of significant cabinet dissent made public so soon.
The puzzle is this. If Mr Musk’s job is to cut government bureaucracy and improve things through Doge, the supposed Department of Government Efficiency, how can he do that if other people decide on the biggest cost, hiring and firing employees?
The language of Mr Musk’s job has certainly changed. He was taking a “hatchet” to bureaucracy. Now it’s a “scalpel”. News reports suggest, for example, there have been significant rows about firing or laying-off air traffic controllers, especially after the horrific crash at Washington’s main airport. If other people hire and fire, what is Mr Musk’s role?
Two things are striking about this insider gossip. The first is that Mr Musk and Mr Trump are hugely successful alpha males, but in any power struggle Mr Trump will win, although given Mr Musk’s high profile, if they fall out, both perhaps could be damaged.
The second striking fact is that the stories and gossip coming out of the Trump Cabinet meetings appear very well sourced. Within the highly competitive inner circle, the top tier of the Trump White House and administration, there is loyalty to the leader but also clearly declared rivalries. That promises more leaks and news stories.
Above all, uncertainty and U-turns are not a by-product of the Trump administration. They are baked in to the way Mr Trump runs things. If Ukraine, European allies, Canada, Mexico, nations across the Middle East and others are uncertain what Mr Trump will do next, so are some of those in the Trump Cabinet.
The trouble with that kind of approach was summed up by a previous president, George W Bush. When there were problems in his administration Bush was clear: “I’m the decider,” he said.
Mr Bush listened to arguments then decided. He stuck by his decisions. Even if you disagreed with his policies, Bush’s “I’m the decider” remark sums up the job description of the US presidency.
Mr Trump is now clearly the decider. But the problem for his Cabinet members, his allies, his neighbours, American investors and indeed the rest of the world is this: if Mr Trump is the decider, is he a leader for whom his indecision is final? Will today’s decisions be reversed tomorrow? Uncertainty has its uses. It also has severe limitations.
