The Art of Assholery: Trump’s Second Term and the Politics of Deliberate Chaos

16 min readMay 7, 2025

In the first hundred days of Trump’s second term, we’ve witnessed not just the implementation of radical policies, but the birth of what I’m calling “governance by assholery” — a deliberate approach that seems designed not only to change America’s direction but to provoke maximum chaos and division in the process. The evidence is clear: this administration isn’t just pursuing an ideological agenda; it’s weaponizing implementation as a form of political theater.

Even where we might agree on some of Trump’s policies (as I do in a few very limited areas), the way in which he’s implementing those policies is just horrific. The direction from the very top down seems to be: “Be the biggest asshole you can be in implementing the President’s orders.”

It’s “tough guy” politics that seems to be derived from watching bad mafia movies, strong feelings of personal insecurity, and a firm belief that Trump’s “base” elected him to break the most things, as fast as possible.

What’s particularly striking is how these policies mirror the extremist Project 2025 blueprint — a document Trump publicly disavowed during his campaign. The massive cuts to federal agencies, elimination of DEI programs, dismantling of the Department of Education, and restructuring of the “administrative state” all align with this radical playbook that was openly described as providing a roadmap for the next Republican president.³

The administration is now implementing the very agenda Trump claimed to know nothing about, with key architects of Project 2025 holding influential positions in his administration. Russ Vought, who authored the Executive Office of the President section in Project 2025, now leads the Office of Management and Budget with sweeping powers to reshape the federal government.⁴ John Ratcliffe, another Project 2025 contributor, now heads the CIA. This isn’t coincidence — it’s calculated deception followed by deliberate implementation.

The administration’s immigration policies offer perhaps the most disturbing examples of governance by assholery, with actions that don’t just test the boundaries of law but deliberately shatter them.

The “Disappeared” Student, for Daring to Write an Op-Ed

On March 25, Turkish doctoral student Rumeysa Ozturk was walking down a street near Tufts University when six plainclothes immigration agents, most with their faces covered, surrounded her, confiscated her phone, handcuffed her, and whisked her away to a detention center in Louisiana.¹² Her apparent crime? Co-authoring an op-ed in the Tufts student newspaper a year earlier that called on the university to “acknowledge the Palestinian genocide” and divest from companies with ties to Israel.¹³

Despite the State Department’s own internal memo finding “no evidence showing that she engaged in antisemitic activities or made public statements supporting a terrorist organization,” the administration has pushed forward with deportation proceedings.¹⁴ Secretary of State Marco Rubio has publicly defended the revocation of Ozturk’s visa, suggesting without evidence that she had vandalized her university and harassed students.¹⁵

This isn’t law enforcement; it’s political theater. The administration uses masked agents to grab a student off the street for expressing political views, holding her thousands of miles from her support network, while making vague accusations about terrorism to justify its actions. When a federal judge ordered Ozturk be brought to Vermont for hearings on whether her detention violated her constitutional rights, the administration filed emergency motions to prevent her transfer, effectively keeping her isolated.¹⁶

Mass Deportations and Judicial Defiance

Even more brazen was the administration’s handling of alleged gang member deportations. On March 15, a federal judge issued an emergency order temporarily barring deportations under Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act and specifically directed that planes already in the air carrying deportees to El Salvador should be turned around.¹⁷ The administration ignored the order, allowing approximately 250 people to be deported to El Salvador’s maximum security “Terrorism Confinement Center.”¹⁸

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt openly defied judicial authority, declaring that “a single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft… full of foreign alien terrorists.”¹⁹ Trump himself dismissed concerns about violating the court order, telling reporters simply, “I can tell you this: these were bad people.”²⁰

El Salvador’s government shared propaganda images showing the deportees with shaved heads, handcuffed and kneeling, surrounded by guards at the prison — with no due process or individual hearings to determine if they actually were gang members.²¹ The administration later admitted that one man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, was “deported in error” — a father with no criminal record who had been granted protection from deportation back in 2019.²²

When a federal judge ordered the administration to “facilitate and effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return, the government again fought the order. The Supreme Court ultimately had to intervene, directing the administration to facilitate his return — but El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele has refused to cooperate, saying he will not return the wrongfully deported man.²³

Even more shocking, in mid-April, the administration acknowledged deporting four more people to El Salvador despite another explicit court order barring such removals. Their defense? The court order only applied to the Department of Homeland Security, while these deportations were carried out by the Department of Defense — a brazen attempt to circumvent judicial authority through bureaucratic technicalities.²⁴

This isn’t governance; it’s performative cruelty designed for the cameras. The administration deliberately creates provocative images — masked agents grabbing people off the street, deportees with shaved heads forced to kneel — to project an image of toughness, regardless of legal constraints or actual guilt of those targeted. The substance of policy is secondary to the spectacle of enforcement.

Most alarming is how the administration uses its defiance of court orders as a badge of honor, positioning judges as obstacles to be overcome rather than constitutional authorities to be respected. This undermines the very foundation of our system of checks and balances. When Trump says “these were bad people” as his only justification for ignoring a federal judge’s order, he’s not just defending a policy decision; he’s declaring presidential power to be above judicial review.

Gaza “Riviera”: Ethnic Cleanser-in-Chief

Trump’s February 2025 announcement that the United States would “take over” and “own” Gaza — transforming it into what he called the “Riviera of the Middle East” after permanently displacing its 2.2 million Palestinian residents — represents perhaps the most startling example of his administration’s approach to governance as performance rather than serious policymaking.²⁵

Standing alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, Trump declared: “The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it, too. We’ll own it.”²⁶ He went on to describe a vision of “level[ing] the site” and creating resort-style developments where “the entire world, representatives from all over the world, will be there, and they’ll live there.”²⁷

What was most telling about this moment wasn’t just the proposal’s breathtaking disregard for international law — permanent displacement of an entire civilian population would constitute ethnic cleansing — but the manner of its presentation. Trump, the former real estate developer, seemed to view Gaza primarily as an undervalued beachfront property opportunity rather than the home of 2.2 million people with a deep historical connection to the land.

When a reporter pointed out that Gaza was the Palestinians’ home, Trump dismissed the concern with a stunning display of callousness: “Why would they want to return? The place has been hell.”²⁸ The implication was clear: These people’s connection to their ancestral land was less important than the property development potential Trump envisioned.

While White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt later attempted to clarify that Palestinians would only be “temporarily relocated,”²⁹ Trump himself doubled down on the permanent nature of his plan, writing on social media that Gaza “would be turned over to the United States by Israel at the conclusion of fighting” after Palestinians had “already been resettled in far safer and more beautiful communities, with new and modern homes, in the region.”³⁰

The plan echoed earlier comments by Jared Kushner, who had described Gaza as “very valuable” waterfront property that could be “cleaned up” after removing Palestinians.³¹ This wasn’t governance; it was a real estate pitch — treating a humanitarian crisis as a business opportunity and an entire population as an inconvenient obstacle to development.

That this proposal emerged just days after the implementation of a fragile ceasefire in Gaza — which the administration was supposedly helping to negotiate — demonstrated the complete disconnect between Trump’s performance of leadership and the actual responsibilities of governance. The ceasefire negotiations required delicate diplomatic balance; Trump’s bombastic announcement undermined that process completely.

Notably, while Netanyahu praised the idea as “remarkable” and “worth paying attention to,”³² virtually every other government in the world condemned it. Saudi Arabia rejected “any infringement on the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.”³³ Jordan and Egypt both denounced the proposal as a “serious violation of international law.”³⁴ China’s foreign ministry called it treating Gaza as a “political bargaining chip.”³⁵

Gazans themselves responded with defiance. “Trump can go to hell, with his ideas, with his money, and with his beliefs. We are going nowhere. We are not some of his assets,” said one Gazan father of five.³⁶

In the weeks following, the administration has attempted to walk back elements of the plan while still defending its core — a familiar pattern of provocation followed by partial retreat that leaves everyone confused about what the actual policy position is. This isn’t governance by serious strategic calculation; it’s governance by headline-grabbing performance, where the objective is attention rather than outcomes.

The Gaza “Riviera” plan reveals the Trump approach in its purest form: treating matters of life and death as primarily opportunities for personal branding, dismissing complex histories and people’s deep connections to place as inconvenient obstacles, and valuing spectacle over substance. It is diplomatic “assholery” elevated to an art form — shocking the world not to achieve strategic objectives but for the sheer spectacle of provocation itself.

Tariffs as Theater: The “Reciprocal” Trade War

Trump’s tariff announcements provide another perfect example of governance by provocation. On April 2, he declared a “national emergency” to increase America’s “competitive edge” and imposed a baseline 10% tariff on imports from all countries, with additional individualized tariffs on nations with which the U.S. has trade deficits.⁸ China was hit with an 84% tariff after it responded with retaliatory measures of its own.⁹

The chaotic implementation followed a familiar pattern: dramatic announcement, market turbulence, partial pullback, renewed escalation. By April 8, Trump paused most of these tariffs for 90 days — except for those on China — only to follow up with new tariffs on other products, including a 100% tariff on foreign-made films announced in early May.¹⁰

Economic experts warn these policies will increase costs for American consumers by an average of $1,300 per household in 2025 and could reduce GDP by 0.8 percent.¹¹ But the economic impact seems secondary to the political theater. Each announcement generates a new cycle of headlines, forces trading partners into retaliatory postures, and allows Trump to portray himself as the tough defender of American interests regardless of the actual outcomes.

The Law Firm Shakedown

In one of the most disturbing examples of governance by intimidation, Trump has issued executive orders targeting law firms for allegedly “weaponizing” the legal system against him and his allies. Nine major law firms have pledged a total of $940 million in pro bono legal work to the Trump administration to avoid becoming targets themselves.¹⁴

These firms have defended these deals as necessary to protect their businesses from Trump’s executive orders, effectively admitting to being coerced into supporting the administration. This isn’t governance; it’s extortion dressed up as policy implementation.

Energy “Emergency”: Redefining Reality to Exclude Renewables

On his first day in office, Trump issued an unprecedented “national energy emergency” declaration that perfectly exemplifies his administration’s approach to governance through provocation and spectacle rather than substantive policymaking.³⁷ The declaration was unprecedented — no president has ever before declared a national energy emergency — and also completely unjustified by actual circumstances.

The most revealing aspect of this executive order was its definition of “energy,” which explicitly excluded wind and solar power while including “crude oil, natural gas, lease condensates, natural gas liquids, refined petroleum products, uranium, coal, biofuels, geothermal heat, the kinetic movement of flowing water, and critical minerals.”³⁸ This redefinition came despite the fact that wind and solar together comprise more than 14% of the country’s electricity generation.³⁹

The declaration manufactured a crisis where none existed, claiming America suffers from “insufficient energy production” and an “inadequate and intermittent energy supply.”⁴⁰ Yet as one legal analysis noted, this claim is “beyond disingenuous” since the United States is currently “the world’s largest oil producer” and has effectively secured energy independence.⁴¹ Even more absurdly, Trump signed this order at a time when renewable energy was rapidly expanding, with the Department of Energy projecting renewables would increase from 23% to 27% of the energy portfolio by 2026.⁴²

The administration’s contempt for reality extends beyond the energy emergency declaration. In a separate executive order, Trump halted all “new or renewed approvals, rights of way, permits, leases, or loans for onshore or offshore wind projects” while simultaneously directing agencies to expedite approvals for fossil fuel projects.⁴³ The hypocrisy is stunning — claiming environmental concerns require pausing wind energy while stripping away environmental protections for oil and gas development.

This isn’t just bad policy; it’s performative governance at its worst. The administration deliberately ignores market trends showing renewable energy’s increasing cost-effectiveness and reliability. States like Texas and California have demonstrated that battery storage combined with renewable energy has effectively eliminated the rolling blackouts that once plagued their systems during extreme weather.⁴⁴ Yet the administration continues to promote a narrative about renewable energy being unreliable and expensive that has been thoroughly debunked by actual market performance.

These energy orders demonstrate the Trump approach in its purest form: ignoring reality to promote an ideological agenda, using the language of emergency to justify extreme actions, and deliberately provoking opposition while playing to a base that cheers the confrontational style regardless of substance. Just as with immigration policy and Gaza, the administration’s energy approach isn’t designed primarily to address actual problems but to create political theater — even if it means literally redefining words like “energy” to exclude solutions that don’t fit the preferred narrative.

DOGE: Musk’s Budget Theater and Ever Smaller Savings

Last but definitely not least, Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — a reference to Elon Musk’s favorite cryptocurrency meme — represents another perfect example of governance as spectacle rather than substance. This initiative, led by the world’s richest man who has no government experience, perfectly encapsulates the administration’s preference for bombastic announcements over careful planning and competent execution.

The saga began with Musk’s eye-popping promise at a Madison Square Garden rally that he would cut “at least $2 trillion” from the federal budget⁴⁵ — an impossible figure considering the entire discretionary budget was only $1.7 trillion. By January, Musk had already begun hedging, telling interviewer Mark Penn that $2 trillion was merely a “best-case outcome” and that $1 trillion was more realistic.⁴⁶ By March, he maintained the $1 trillion goal with a May deadline.⁴⁷ Yet by April, the savings target had been downgraded yet again to just $150 billion — less than one-tenth of the original promise.⁴⁸

This dramatic reduction in ambition might be forgivable if it represented a realistic reassessment after careful study. But DOGE’s approach has been anything but careful. A small cadre of software engineers with connections to Musk has fanned out across federal agencies, where they’ve pushed for mass firings, slashed budgets without proper evaluation, and burrowed into sensitive data systems.⁴⁹ The initiative’s claims have repeatedly proven exaggerated or outright false — including an assertion that “tens of millions of dead people” were fraudulently receiving Social Security benefits, which was quickly disproven.⁵⁰

Most troubling is how DOGE appears designed to serve Musk’s personal interests rather than the public good. A Senate investigation revealed that on the day of Trump’s inauguration, Musk and his companies were facing at least 65 actual or potential regulatory or enforcement actions from 11 federal agencies, with potential liabilities totaling $2.37 billion.⁵¹ These included investigations into Tesla’s claims about its autopilot features and Neuralink’s alleged animal welfare violations.

As one Senate report concluded, “The through line connecting many of Mr. Musk’s decisions appears to be self-enrichment and avoiding what he perceives as obstacles to advancing his interests.”⁵² This isn’t good governance; it’s crony capitalism at its most blatant.

The ideological nature of DOGE’s targets further undermines its credibility as a serious cost-cutting effort. Nine of the fifteen agencies targeted by Musk’s team were specifically singled out for elimination or downsizing in the Project 2025 blueprint.⁵³ Veteran Republican budget experts have noted that DOGE’s efforts so far appear “driven more by an ideological assault on federal agencies long hated by conservatives than a good-faith effort to save taxpayer dollars.”⁵⁴

Even congressional Republicans are balking at approving these cuts once they see the details, with Senator Susan Collins expressing particular concern about slashing funding for PEPFAR, a program to combat HIV/AIDS abroad that enjoys bipartisan support.⁵⁵ This resistance from members of the president’s own party underscores how extreme and poorly conceived many of these cuts are.

In true Trump administration fashion, DOGE seems more concerned with creating the appearance of dramatic action than with actually improving government efficiency. The rush to announce massive savings goals, followed by their quiet downward revision when reality intrudes, mirrors the pattern we’ve seen across other policy areas — from Gaza to immigration to energy. It’s governance as performance art, where bold promises matter more than actual achievements, and where the impact on real people’s lives is secondary to the political theater.

The Method Behind the Madness

The genius — if we can call it that — of Trump’s approach is how it weaponizes both positive and negative coverage. When mainstream media criticizes his policies as reckless or harmful, his base sees evidence of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” When his actions receive positive coverage from friendly outlets, it’s proof that he’s “making America great again.” The narrative works regardless of the actual policy outcomes.

This isn’t governance in any traditional sense — it’s governance as perpetual culture war. Each executive order serves as both policy document and political grenade, designed to force Americans to choose sides and view every issue through a partisan lens. The actual effects on people’s lives seem secondary to the spectacle.

What makes this approach particularly effective is how it exploits media incentives. Outrage drives clicks, views, and shares. Every presidential tweet, every inflammatory statement at a press conference, every confrontational policy rollout becomes fodder for endless cable news segments and social media battles. The administration knows this and feeds the beast deliberately.

Public polling suggests this approach is already wearing thin with many Americans. According to recent surveys from Pew Research, Trump’s approval rating stands at just 40%, with majority disapproval for key policies like the tariff increases (59% disapproval) and federal agency cuts (55% disapproval).¹⁵

Even many Republicans express concern about the administration’s use of executive power, with significant majorities believing courts should be able to check presidential overreach. Yet the Trump machine continues unabated, because the strategy doesn’t require majority approval — it requires only an energized base and a demoralized opposition.

The Consequences for Democracy

The truly concerning aspect isn’t just the policies themselves — though many are indeed troubling — but the cynicism with which they’re deployed. The goal appears to be not just governance but the transformation of governance into a perpetual reality show where ratings matter more than results.

This approach corrodes the foundations of democratic governance in several ways:

It undermines the concept of public service by making loyalty to a single person, rather than to the Constitution, the primary qualification for government work.
It destroys institutional memory and expertise by replacing career officials with loyalists, regardless of qualifications.
It treats policy implementation not as a means to improve citizens’ lives but as a weapon to reward friends and punish enemies.
It deliberately inflames divisions rather than seeking common ground, making compromise increasingly impossible.
It replaces substantive debate about policy merits with spectacle and performance, impoverishing our civic discourse.

The “assholery” isn’t a bug; it’s a feature. The chaos, the controversy, the constant provocation — these are tools designed to exhaust critics while thrilling supporters. This is why Trump could brazenly claim during the campaign that he knew nothing about Project 2025, only to implement many of its policies immediately upon taking office. The contradiction isn’t embarrassing to him; it’s part of the show.

The Path Forward

As citizens, we need to recognize this strategy for what it is and refuse to let it normalize. We must evaluate policies on their merits rather than their ability to generate outrage. We need to hold our institutions accountable for protecting democratic norms even when — especially when — they’re under deliberate attack.

We must also recognize that this approach to governance isn’t sustainable. When policy becomes performance art (performed by assholes at every level), nobody wins. Businesses can’t plan for the future when tariff policies change weekly. Government agencies can’t function effectively when expertise is purged in favor of loyalty. Citizens can’t trust their government when its actions are motivated by vengeance rather than the public good.

Trump’s second term is young, but its character is already clear. This is governance by grievance, policy by provocation, leadership by deliberate division. It’s the art of assholery, with the biggest asshole at the top of the food chain, spewing shit on the many layers of assholes beneath him.

And unless we maintain our capacity for outrage while refusing to be consumed by it, it may well define American politics for years to come.

[Claude 3.7 Sonnet assisted in writing this essay]

References

The Art of Assholery: Trump’s Second Term and the Politics of Deliberate Chaos

Written by Tam Hunt

No responses yet