Trump: Four Weeks In.

On the 16^th February, President Trump announced: “I don't think there's ever been a President elected who in this short period of time has done what we've done.” After four weeks in the White House, he said "incredible progress" had been made. He had signed more than two dozen Executive Orders, as well as several Bills. He also saw most of his cabinet in place and fired his first choice National Security Adviser, as well as an acting Attorney General for defying the seven-nation travel ban. But what has President Trump actually achieved?

President Trump signed Executive Orders at a seemingly unprecedented rate, often using a photo opportunity of a President at work, yet according to The Washington Post, President Obama signed more EOs during his same first weeks in office. The contrast doesn’t stop there. On entering office, Obama had a major economic crisis to face and he dealt with it in a serious but calm manner. Trump has no major crisis. Instead, he is treating the White House as if it is a television stage for a reality star. Gold curtains as a back drop for press conferences is not a good look, unless you happen to be tacky and want to be awash with the colour.

I have two particular issues that concern me. First, the American media. It chooses to analyse Trump the man, rather than the policies he is espousing. Some American newspapers are even providing a mental picture of the new President. ‘Experts’ trot out their views on the demonic and megalomaniac nature of the new man in the White House. I have to ask, have any of these experts examined him? Indeed, have any even spoken to him? I must conclude this is a media exercise of form over substance. Forget the body language and focus on the policies!

Having said this, in the administration’s first few days, Trump acted as if he was back on The Apprentice. ‘Look at me, look at what I’m doing, look at what I’m signing,’ seemed to be the desired message, followed by “you’re fired” when his NSA adviser, Michael Flynn, admitted lying to VP Pence over discussions with the Russians.

Where US relations with Russia are concerned, the American press is on a witch hunt. Did Trump know Flynn had talked to Putin's people about sanctions before the Inauguration? The D.C. media went into "shock horror" mode, but apparently forgot what Nixon allegedly did shortly before the 1968 election. He had a message sent to North Vietnamese leaders not to agree a peace deal with the Johnson administration because better terms would be on offer from him once he was elected. So, I feel the press itself has some questions to answer about its lack of balance on US/Russia reportage.

What of America's relations with NATO and Israel? Is it wrong for the Americans to tell its NATO partners to pay their fair share? Trump may not succeed but it's worth a try. As for peace in Israel, raising the proposition that a two state solution is off the table seems to me to be disingenuous. Is Trump trying to divide and rule in the Middle East, setting Iran against its neighbours? I suspect the policy will fail but there is no suggestion yet that Trump is embarked on a Middle East venture with all guns blazing. Yet the American press paints a different and adverse picture of Trump’s policy, criticizing him for overturning and terminating peace initiatives and alienating Palestinians in an effort to heat up the Middle East.

In previous blogs, I have alluded to parallels between the Trump and FDR administrations. However, where relations with the press are concerned, you could not find a greater difference. FDR operated on the premise that you catch more flies with honey. He knew he needed the newspapers to support his radical economic policies. He courted reporters, provided a press room in the White House and reaped the benefit. Trump’s declaration of war on the Fake News Media, even as he peddles it, will surely rebound. If he forgets or fights against the symbiotic nature of the relationship between the Chief Executive and the media, he will surely regret it.

My second issue is the apparent lack of understanding in the many Brits I talk with as to how America government works. I am told that Trump is a braggart, a self-obsessed, thin skinned man with a short attention-span who “lies like a hairy egg.” But I am weary with being asked how Americans could elect such a person. Can ‘the most powerful man in the world’ be this way? My answer is to point to the American Constitution. America handles separation of powers differently to the British. The President is not in any way like a British Prime Minister. When Presidential authority is analysed, he may be Commander in Chief but what are his other powers? He cannot declare war nor even appoint cabinet members, ambassadors or judges unless the Senate “advises and consents.” 

I suggest that currently, the most powerful man in D.C. is Paul Ryan. As Speaker of the House of Representatives, Ryan decides on passage of legislation through the House and particularly he controls the path of money bills. Trump will not be able to buy one brick for his acclaimed Mexican Wall unless Ryan gets his House colleagues to give the thumbs up.

The new administration appears to be chaotic. Numerous Presidencies have been shambolic from the get-go. Take a look at the first weeks of the Carter and Clinton administrations. At the latter's first State of the Union, he reneged on a middle class tax cut, saying, "you play the cards you're dealt." Effectively, Wall Street had given the finger to Clinton, telling him the tax cut would create an economic disaster.

Putting a new US government together is a gargantuan and difficult task, which is why most Presidents get a honeymoon period from the press. In 1952, America elected its first non-political President since Grant in 1868. Ike was a professional soldier but he had held positions of enormous power in the military, requiring political savvy and the press loved him. For sure, he knew his way around Washington. Now, America has a businessman, Donald J. Trump. No honeymoon period for him. His refusal to disclose tax returns must give cause to doubt his business dealings, let alone his honesty. But his political sensibilities are the real cause for concern. Does he really expect conflict of interest issues to go away? How does he expect to govern with a hostile media looking at his every move?

And Trump likes to equate all his actions with combative business deals. Having seen Congress repeal an Obama EO on gun registration for people with mental problems, what kind of deal is that? Also, the administration has withdrawn a federal guideline requiring transgender students to have unfettered access to bathrooms and locker rooms matching their gender identity. In doing so, it has signalled that the administration does not interpret current federal civil rights protections as prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity.

This is not just a Trump thing. It is 21^st century Republican ideology which opposes not only any restriction on 2^nd Amendment rights but also LGBT. It suspect it will not be long before new federal restrictions on abortion come front and centre. I find it particularly distressing that Trump referred to “a so-called judge” when the seven nation Muslim ban EO was ruled unlawful. At the end of the day, seeing the executive branch of American government attack the legislative branch serves to undermine the rule of law on which western democracy is based. 

But should we Brits not get a better understanding how the executive branch government is often subservient not only to both Houses of Congress and the Courts but also the voters? In the 2018 mid-terms Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress may shrink and even disappear. The Constitution is based strictly on the doctrine of separation of powers and woe betide any President who seeks to contravene the rules. In 1937, FDR sought to pack a hostile Supreme Court bench with judges who would be more accommodating. An overwhelming Democratic Congress threw out the proposal in short shrift.

Let me be clear. I don't like Trump's politics, his style or pretty well anything else about him for that matter. I didn't vote for him, nor did any other Brits. To an extent, his election is none of our business. But the man in the White House could damage British interests with his overt ‘America First’ policy. It doubt it will do us on this side of the pond any good if our Prime Minister continues to fawn over Mr Trump.