Magazine | October 2, 2017, Issue

Trump’s New Deal

On the president’s alleged triangulation

Just after Labor Day, President Trump made two moves that pleased Democrats and worried Republicans. He sided with the Democrats on legislation to lift the federal government’s debt ceiling. He also seemed to call on Congress to grant an amnesty to illegal immigrants who were brought to this country as minors, and vaguely suggested that if Congress did not act he might grant it himself.

These moves set off another of the feverish rounds of speculation that have been a regular feature of Washington, D.C., under Trump. Was the president preparing to ditch congressional Republicans and not just criticize their leaders on Twitter? Were there other deals that Trump could reach with congressional Democrats? Would this strategy enable him to accomplish more of his agenda and raise his popularity?

It is probably a mistake, however, to think that Trump is following a new strategy of working with the Democrats or one of playing the parties against each other. Congressional Republicans should not worry too much about those possibilities. What Trump’s behavior showed, though, ought to worry them enough: Trump is frustrated with how little he has achieved working with them, and he has not come up with any solutions for his predicament.

One reason to think that Trump is acting out of impulse rather than strategy is that he was in a better position to fulfill a top campaign promise before he made these overtures to Democrats. For months he has been demanding that Congress provide funding for a wall on the Mexican border, even suggesting that he might shut down the government with a budget veto if it did not.

In early September, he created an opportunity to get Democrats to agree to that funding. President Obama had given an amnesty to the illegal immigrants who came here as minors. Republicans had criticized him at the time: some because they object to any amnesty on principle, but most because they considered it beyond the president’s legitimate power to act without congressional authorization. President Trump said he would halt Obama’s policy in six months, giving Congress time to enact an amnesty the right way. Since Democrats wanted the amnesty more than Republicans while Republicans could live with it, a deal was possible: Congress could grant the amnesty and fund the wall. A deal was not inevitable, since Democrats could decide that they cannot live with a wall, or work with Trump. But the need to secure Republican cooperation on the amnesty could bring them to the table.

By tweeting that Congress had six months to legalize DACA, that he might “revisit” his decision to end Obama’s, and — at Nancy Pelosi’s suggestion! — that the affected illegal immigrants had nothing to fear, Trump made that deal much less likely. He told the Democrats, in effect, that they would get the amnesty they want without having to build the wall. (He also undercut those, including his own attorney general and his White House spokesmen, who had said that Obama’s amnesty had to end because it is unconstitutional.)

Trump could still use the threat of a shutdown to try to get funding for the wall. It does not seem likely to work: Democrats would probably just expect any political trouble from the shutdown to accrue to Republicans, since their party controls the White House and Congress and their leader has been talking about precipitating it. But Trump seems to have reduced the likelihood of this scenario, too, by agreeing with the Democrats on the debt limit. (He did not make a “deal” with them; he simply sided with them rather than engaging in any give-and-take.)

So wall funding seems to be as far off as ever. Neither Paul Ryan nor Mitch McConnell is likely to lose much sleep over that fact: Like most Republican elected officials, they have evinced less enthusiasm for the wall than Trump has. Trump’s overtures to Democrats have set back his own stated goals, which are also the goals of many of his most fervent supporters, more than they have set back the goals of the congressional leadership.

This result should give pause to those supporters about a view that has become an article of faith among them: that Trump is not getting his agenda into law mainly because congressional Republicans have been letting him down. Steve Bannon, the recently fired Trump aide, told 60 Minutes that Ryan and McConnell were “trying to nullify the 2016 election,” citing among other things their opposition to protectionist tariffs. A lot of free-traders were elected or, like Ryan, reelected in 2016 too, of course, and may not see why they should consider Trump’s election to have nullified theirs.

Anyway, Ryan has not been blocking protectionist legislation: Trump has not proposed any. Nor has Trump done everything he could outside Congress to get tariffs. He has hired some free-traders for top positions and fired one of his top protectionist aides: Bannon himself. Bannon’s surface complaint is that congressional Republicans are not letting Trump be Trump. His real complaint is that Trump isn’t Bannon.

Bannon has also expressed discontent on Obamacare. Congress has considered only modifications to Obama’s law, not a true repeal and replacement, and has failed to pass even those modifications. It is a complaint with which most conservatives will agree. Congressional leaders surely deserve some blame for this inaction, even if it is implausible to suppose they have failed because they lacked commitment to Trump.

F. H. Buckley, a law professor at George Mason University, is another strong supporter of Trump who believes that Ryan has been an anchor pulling down the Trump presidency. But his idea of a liberated Trump is in some respects the opposite of Bannon’s: He wants Trump to embrace a single-payer health-care system akin to the one in Buckley’s native Canada.

This disagreement suggests that there is no pure Trumpist program waiting to be enacted once the Republican establishment gives way. Is Trump a Bannonite or an (F. H.) Buckleyite? Neither. President Trump is a golfer, as Russell Kirk said of President Eisenhower in another context. Nobody needs to let Trump be Trump: He has never been anything else. Being Trump has obviously served him very well in life, and especially over the last two years.

But Trump’s actions on the debt limit and the amnesty illustrate how some of his traits can impede his ability to deliver on his promises to his core voters. It is much more plausible that he acted on impulse than from strategy. He did not like the bad press he got after his initial announcement that he was canceling the amnesty; he is irritated at McConnell and Ryan for various slights and failures; Pelosi and Chuck Schumer probably flattered him. (It has been reported that he mentioned to those Democrats the good press they got over the debt limit.)

Impulse could turn into strategy as Trump finds that continuing to side with the Democrats will get him even more good press. But that would at best be a strategy for enhancing his own popularity, not one for making Ryan, Bannon, or Buckley happy. And if Trump’s undercutting of congressional Republicans contributes to their losing the House in 2018, the president might discover that there are worse frustrations than having Ryan as Speaker.

Ramesh Ponnuru — Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor for National Review, a columnist for Bloomberg View, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute.

In This Issue



Books, Arts & Manners


Politics & Policy


Shared Culture, Shared Beliefs Michael Lind is to be commended for trying to reunite America under “cultural nationalism” (“The Case for Cultural Nationalism,” September 11). He defines this as “an American ...
Politics & Policy

The Week

‐ The Boston Red Sox announced the hiring of Edward Snowden as bench coach. ‐ Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer wanted to extend the debt limit for three months, while their ...
Politics & Policy


LOOKING EAST A Yes or No answer, black or white, is Not found staring at the ocean, much as The sea magnetizes our attention. It holds us more completely than we feel It does, the ...

Most Popular

Film & TV

Why We Can’t Have Wakanda

SPOILERS AHEAD Black Panther is a really good movie that lives up to the hype in just about every way. Surely someone at Marvel Studios had an early doubt, reading the script and thinking: “Wait, we’re going to have hundreds of African warriors in brightly colored tribal garb, using ancient weapons, ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

What the Second Amendment Means Today

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ... Read More