Trump’s shock therapy

Donald Trump reacted with fury last week when a federal judge overturned his executive order temporarily barring entry into the US for people from seven Muslim-majority countries. Trump questioned the legitimacy of the “so-called judge”, and vowed to overturn the “ridiculous” ruling, which he claimed put the US in danger. “If something happens blame him and court system,” he fumed in a tweet. The White House also took some combative steps on the foreign policy front, imposing new sanctions on Iran after it test-fired a ballistic missile. “Iran is playing with fire,” said Trump.

“They don’t appreciate how ‘kind’ President Obama was to them. Not me!” He reportedly cut short a phone call with the Australian prime minister after clashing with him over an agreement struck by Barack Obama to accept 1,250 refugees from Australian detention centres. “I will study this dumb deal,” Trump tweeted soon after the call. The president also outraged critics by suggesting, during an interview, that the US was in no position to criticise the brutal methods of the Putin regime, as it operated in much the same way.

“These ought to have been the honeymoon days of Trump-era diplomacy,” said The New York Times. With foreign leaders anxious to decipher the new president’s priorities, Trump had a chance to reassure allies and reach out. Instead, the president has “rattled the world by needlessly insulting allies and continuing to peddle the dumbfounding narrative that the US has long been exploited by allies and foes alike”. Trump’s attacks on the judiciary at home are equally egregious, said The Guardian. He doesn’t care about law and due process, only about mobilising public opinion against the “enemies of the people”.

We have “profound reservations” about Trump, said the Daily Mail, but “is it just possible his bark is worse than his bite”? While his tweets may be crazy, his actions aren’t so scary. He has assembled a team of “serious-minded heavyweights”; he no longer talks about banning all Muslims from entering the US, as he once did; he has thrown his weight behind Nato. With luck, the US system will constrain Trump, said The Independent. Judges won’t be bullied into submission; nor will the legislature. “There may be a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress, but there is no Trump majority in either of them.”

Trump’s foreign policy views should come as no surprise, said Margareta Pagano on Reaction.
He didn’t just make them up “on the hoof” to win over “rust-belt and redneck voters” in the
election; he has been spouting them for decades. In 1987, angry that the US was escorting
Kuwaiti tankers through the Arabian Gulf, he published an open letter in which he claimed that
“the world is laughing at America’s politicians as we protect ships we don’t own, carrying oil
we don’t need, destined for allies who won’t help”. In a Playboy interview in 1990, he again
raged about the US being “ripped off so badly by our so-called allies”.

There is “some method” to Trump’s “madness”, said Eugene Robinson in The Washington
Post. He wants to disrupt the status quo, and believes he has “a mandate to radically change US
immigration policy, defend what he sees as Western values and project his vision of American
strength”. But how does being rude to the Australian prime minister further those ends? What
rational purpose is served by vilifying a federal judge? Trump is picking too many fights, agreed
Charles Moore in The Daily Telegraph. The president is a true “outsider” – the first US leader
never to have held public office or commanded armed forces. He is thus in a unique position to
challenge the Establishment – and he has, in fact, already launched a welcome clampdown on
Washington lobbying. But too much of the administration’s energy is being “wasted on rage”.

Trump’s heavy-handed tactics may cost him, said Daniel Henninger in The Wall Street Journal.
They’re prompting growing protests – and not just from “Democrats, career progressives and
the media”. His immigration curbs have attracted criticism from tech industry leaders,
Republicans, numerous US universities and foreign leaders. This early fuss may blow over.
But Trump should heed the experience of Lyndon Johnson, who, despite being the “most deft
of politicians”, was brought down by a similar wave of dissent, after the anti-war movement
of the 1960s “took on a life of its own”. It’s all very well drawing up clear battle lines, but “you
had better be sure” that the balance of power remains in your favour.