It’s tough enough as it is, given Trump’s energy level, but it’s even tougher because Trump is going in many different directions and is probably engaging in a fair amount of misdirection to keep the Deep State and Ruling Class off balance. So far it seems to be working. You can see that the Ruling Class is at a loss as to how to cope with Trump—they’re frantically working all the familiar levers but getting no response. It’s almost like they’re playing Casey Jones to Trump’s unstoppable loco-motive:
Trouble ahead, trouble behind And you know that notion just crossed my mind
Trouble ahead A lady in red Take my advice You'd be better off dead
What’s going on here is that Trump has pursued a smart decapitation strategy, and most clearly at DoJ and FBI. For example, at the FBI not only was Wray forced out before the inauguration but, even before Kash has been confirmed, the six Executive Assistant Directors (EADs) directly below the Director have all been cashiered (amusingly, even as Kash was testifying to the Senate—that’s known as “the bird”). Who’s a poor Deep Stater to turn to now, when he needs the FBI to take someone out? Worse, there’s nowhere to hide with the Muskers running amuck with their audits. It’s like Alastair Crooke said this morning:
One of the most difficult tasks we face at the moment is addressing who Trump is and what he's doing. I mean, he's a complicated person and he is a showman. He is very adept at addressing different audiences in different ways—sometimes by saying something quite nonsensical. It's not meant for the whole audience—it's just meant for one segment of the audience. So it's very difficult to to address precisely what he's saying.
I take it that “he’s a complicated person” is a way of saying: He’s a lot smarter than many of us previously thought.
Today the big buzz is about the tariffs. Since I’m not an economist I consulted with Philip Pilkington and Jeffrey Sachs this morning. They both offered up the usual textbook explanations of how international trade works and why tariffs don’t work. The problem, of course, is that historically tariffs actually have worked—in certain situations. It seems real life isn’t always as simple as economics textbooks imply. As Trump is using them, tariffs aren’t some sort of grand principle—they’re a means to an end, and the end will undoubtedly vary according to the situation. So, for example, in what way to tariffs not work in dealing with Germany?
The textbooks probably don’t explain that sometimes a tariff threat can prove to be a quick win, and then the threatener simply moves on.
Similarly, relations between America and the current three target countries—Canada, Mexico, and China—are simply not the same, so the ends in view may not be identical in each case. For example, the cheap stuff Mexico sends us is largely stuff that we eat. China is a different story entirely. Part of the goal of these tariffs is undoubtedly economic, although how that fits in to the long versus the short term is up for debate. But other goals are not economic in any usual understanding of the term—control over cross border migration and the movement of dangerous drugs. In other words, the tariffs—to a degree that only Trump knows—are sometimes being used to coerce changes in non-economic policies. Canada appears to be adopting a stupid response, by taking the bait and attemting to engage in a tariff war that they will surely lose in the long run—maybe even in the short run. China, on the other hand, seems to have a much smarter response, probably because they understand what Trump is up to. And so China is said to be preparing to enter into negotiations—which is almost certainly what Trump is looking for.
For all these reasons I suspect we will just have to wait and see how the tariff tactic plays out, rather than relying on textbook orthodoxies. America has manifold problems that Trump is urgently seeking to address, and he’s using the tools that he has to hand. It’s wrong to suppose that he is inflexible in addressing these problems—he can and will adjust. Whether the tariffs “work” will depend on the circumstances—what they’re actually intended to accomplish.
Before we leave tariffs, PP has an amusing tweet in which he recounts that this Starmer guy thinks the UK can evade the tariff crunch by appealing to methodology. Problem: two can play that game.
Philip Pilkington @philippilk
Some dorks in Whitehall think they can trick Trump into something or other because of mEtHOdOloGy and they’re so confident they’re talking to the FT about it. UK under Starmer is a clownocracy. 
Turning to what Trump is saying and doing on the domestic front—and, in many way, as I keep insisting, Trump’s urgent efforts to clean up America’s geopolitical entanglements are aimed at giving him a freer had at home—I want to draw attention to a smart thread/article by Jonathan Turley on the birthright citizenship EO. Turley clearly gets the saying/doing distinction, and the need to dig deeper regarding almost anything Trump is up to. In that regard Trump is fortunate in his enemies, as Turley also notes—this is from a must read, excellent article:
Asked to identify the Democratic Party’s most important priorities, Americans most often listed abortion, L.G.B.T.Q. rights and climate change, according to a poll from The New York Times and Ipsos conducted from Jan. 2 to 10.
The issues that people cited as most important to them personally were the economy and inflation, health care and immigration, the poll found. The kinds of social causes that progressive activists have championed in recent years ranked much lower.
OK, we all kinda knew that, but on the birthright issue Turley is showing that he has thought more deeply than many pundits:
A familiar pattern emerged this week. The usual alliance of pundits, professors and press denounced Trump's challenge to birthright citizenship and promised a fight in the courts and Congress. That appears to be precisely what the Administration wanted...
...During the Civil War, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant once declared, “I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer.” In a war of attrition, Grant liked the odds. Conservatives seem to have the same view of the lay of the land in the fight over birthright citizenship.
Why is this a win win?
Roughly half of the country oppose birthright citizenship. The key is where those voters are coming from. The minority of voters supporting the right are overwhelmingly coming from the Democratic core that opposed Trump in the last election. In other words, it is an issue appealing to the very margin voters that will be needed in the midterm election. That makes this a perfect wedge issue either as a court fight or, if unsuccessful, a fight for a constitutional amendment.
…
That is why the Trump administration may win either way. It will either secure a new interpretation from the high court or it could spur a campaign for a constitutional amendment. All of this could unfold around the time of the midterm elections, when incumbents of the president’s party are generally disfavored. This is a wedge issue that many in the Republican Party might welcome.
Even RINOs are probably impressed with Trump’s judo move here, and welcome this type of leadership. It’s also a reminder that Trump is much smarter than his enemies suppose.
There’s another demographic that, like RINOs, may actually learn to appreciate Trump: Journalists. I was talking about this with my wife after watching another one of Trump’s “impromptu” press conferences on the tarmac. In essence, Trump was feeding the journos one story after another, if they’re enterprising enough to do a bit of digging on Trump’s talking points. If they do, they could make their careers—as well as their retirement life in comfort. PP seems to hint at that, too:
Elon Musk @elonmusk
It’s amazing what you can learn from device forensics. They won’t get away with their crimes. x.com/mikebenzcyber/…
Mike Benz @MikeBenzCyber
Both USAID and NED are **directly accountable** to both the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We need both House and Senate subpoenas, hearings, and mandatory transcribed interviews with all USAID and NED employees involved.
Philip Pilkington @philippilk
Man, hard-working journalists are about to get access to a treasure trove of information about what that whole “global liberal wokeism” was actually about. Hint: it was about hollowing out the sovereignty of EU countries using a bunch of useful idiot left-liberals.
Enterprising politicians can benefit from all this, too.
Well, that’s the end of Colour Revolutions, I should think. They don’t work any more anyway. Outdated political technology. They just annoy other countries and turn them against the US.
Here are the last two paragraphs from Darren Beattie’s quite interesting Wikipedia profile:
In October 2024, Beattie posted on X that "Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work. Unfortunately, our entire national ideology is predicated on coddling the feelings of women and minorities, and demoralizing competent white men."
Here's the thing about tariffs that I'm quite certain Trump understands. In the short term tariffs ALWAYS cause disruption. But politicians almost all operate in the short term--that term being the next election--and so hate disruption. Therefore almost all politicians will be open to some sort of deal in order to avoid disruption. The art of the deal in this situation is to provide a palatable exit for disruption avoidance.
Here's the thing about tariffs that I'm quite certain Trump understands. In the short term tariffs ALWAYS cause disruption. But politicians almost all operate in the short term--that term being the next election--and so hate disruption. Therefore almost all politicians will be open to some sort of deal in order to avoid disruption. The art of the deal in this situation is to provide a palatable exit for disruption avoidance.
https://redstate.com/rusty-weiss/2025/02/03/audit-now-zelensky-says-he-has-no-idea-where-well-over-half-the-billions-in-us-aid-to-ukraine-went-n2185145
Start the search in the DC area. Calling Elon!