Dear Weekend Jolter,
We know. It felt a lot longer than 100 days.
The media could have conducted their traditional presidential check-in at Day 3, really, and had plenty to talk about (we sort of did). Now that President Trump has passed the contrived milestone that compels the press to assess the progress of more ordinary presidents operating on more ordinary timetables, we at NR were not immune to the gnawing impulse to somehow gauge, even grade, the initial output of this sui generis administration.
In fairness, Trump marked the occasion too.
To call the first 100 days of the second Trump administration consequential would be an understatement. They were a revolution without war. The nature of executive power, the tone of our politics, international trade, our alliances and the assumptions that undergird them, perceptions about federal employment, Tesla's standing among wealthy cosmopolitans — these things will never be the same. The left's march through the institutions, meanwhile, has at least been slowed, for now, while illegal border crossings have plummeted with Trump acting as a one-man deterrent.
The post–January 20 timeline contains too much to pack into a single newsletter, or a week's worth of NRO coverage. But the following pieces hit the highlights and the lowlights — starting with NR's editorial:
What we've gotten from Trump so far is, not unexpectedly, a mixed bag.
He instantly brought to a halt the leftward lurch of the federal government, and he has set about reversing as much of Biden's agenda as can be reached by counter-executive actions. Within days, he ended a historic crisis at the southern border that had built through the Obama administration, continued at times during his first term, and truly spiraled out of control under Joe Biden. He's been a force for sanity in the transgender debate, especially when it comes to female sports. His moves against DEI and other race-conscious policies have been far-reaching, consequential, and brave. All of this is something to celebrate.
A theme of the first three months, though, has been an emphasis on speed over care and an impatience with rules. This can feel as though it's creating instant results — and sometimes it really is — but also can be self-defeating.
DOGE is the foremost example. . . . The same could be said of the administration's deportations of alleged gang members to El Salvador. . . .
If the initiatives above have been worthy but lacking in execution, Trump's wide-ranging attacks on law firms he doesn't like have been untoward and probably unconstitutional, if successful in wringing pro bono work out of many of the targets. He's also gone after individuals for purposes of sheer revenge.
What hangs over the first 100 days the most, however, and has led to a dip in Trump's polling, is the "liberation day" tariffs. Trump arrogated to himself the authority to impose sweeping tariffs on the entire world, a power that properly belongs to Congress, and has caused turmoil throughout the economy; many economic indicators are now pointing in the wrong direction.
Dan McLaughlin hazards the assignment of letter grades for everything from trade to immigration. You'll have to read his piece for the full report card, but here's the final score:
Overall grade: C−. Trump has tried to do a lot of good and may end up with more credit if more of it sticks. But his tariff policies have overshadowed and complicated so many of his other efforts, and the combination of the team he has in place and the philosophical orientation we've seen so far bodes very poorly for the rest of Trump's second term. He has already squandered opportunities he won't have again, blown any chance to set a tone of restoring sanity after the wild policy excesses, social policy extremism, and drunken-sailor spending of the Biden years, and begun what looks like a process of restoring the fortunes of the Democrats without their having learned anything from their mistakes. Trump has, once again, proven more adept at breaking things than building them, and he is less restrained by law than he was previously — an ominous sign, given how much damage to constitutional governance was done the past four years. Given that there is nowhere else besides the Republican Party for constitutionalists, free marketers, social conservatives, or foreign policy hawks to go, it may be a long and dark road ahead.
On the sheer, staggering output of this administration's first 100 days, Audrey Fahlberg pulls back the curtain:
The stunning scope of this administration's approach to presidential power did not emerge out of thin air. This time around, the president's closest advisers invested much more time and energy into how he would govern by executive fiat. And to avoid the disorganization of Trump White House 1.0, his transition team implemented an intense vetting process to sniff out administration hires who weren't sufficiently allied with the president's campaign promises.
This is a drastic change from his first term, "when the White House was so factionalized that different factions would often try to push through executive actions without other factions inside the White House knowing about it," a Trump world operative said in an interview. In other words, this administration is letting Trump be Trump. "The president decides what he wants to do, and the team goes and does it."
There's more, of course. Mark Antonio Wright looks ahead, while looking back. Rich Lowry recently checked in on the "vibes." And don’t forget: It's only May.
It may prove that "liberation day" was the decisive point for this administration, or at least that April was (as Jeff Blehar suspects), in setting the trajectory for the rest of the term. But nobody can confidently predict the next hundred or thousand or even ten days; 93 percent of Trump's presidency remains, it bears repeating. In baseball terms, the first inning isn't even over yet. In terms of golf, Trump has only just teed off on the second hole. He's got an entire round ahead of him.
NAME. RANK. LINK.
EDITORIALS
Oh no, Canada: Canada's Anti-Trump Election
It's like a Quentin Tarantino scene over there: A Circular Firing Squad at the Pentagon
On the birth dearth: Our Urgent Birth Rate Problem
The 100 days editorial, once more, is here: The First 100 Days
ARTICLES
Abigail Anthony: HHS Report Finds No Strong Evidence Supporting 'Gender-Affirming Care' Effectiveness
Alexandra DeSanctis: Chemical Abortion Far More Dangerous to Women Than FDA Admits, Research Shows
Stanley Kurtz: What, to a Conservative, Is Academic Freedom?
James Lynch: Mark Carney's Liberals Win Canadian Election Upended by Donald Trump
Noah Rothman: The Sordid Logic of the Ukraine Minerals Deal
Noah Rothman: Shri Thanedar Plays Us All Like a Fiddle
Andrew McCarthy: In Combative Interview, Trump Insists He Will Not Facilitate Abrego Garcia's Return to U.S.
Jeffrey Blehar: 'Dark Woke' Will Not Work for Democrats
Charles C. W. Cooke: Democrats Are Squandering the Chance to Make the Sober Case Against Trump
Kayla Bartsch: Ethnic Studies Activists Infiltrate California Curriculum, Allies Shame Jewish Parents Who Object
Elliott Abrams: State Department 'Reform' Plans Leave Much to Be Desired
Pradheep J. Shanker: RFK Jr. Gets One Right
John Fund: Why Are So Many U.S. Senators Heading for the Exit Doors?
Becket Adams: No, Right-Wing 'Rhetoric' Isn't to Blame for the Media Credibility Crisis
Dan McLaughlin: Gentner Drummond's Bad Choices for Oklahoma
Jim Geraghty: Trump Echoes Bernie Sanders in Opposing Consumer Choices
CAPITAL MATTERS
Caleb Petitt looks into what caused the climb: When Did the American Housing Affordability Crisis Begin?
LIGHTS. CAMERA. REVIEW.
Armond White will not be getting invited to Clooney's Christmas party this year: George Clooney's Broadway Coup
Brian Allen ships up to Boston and finds new life at the Gardner: A Day at Boston's Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum
THESE EXCERPTS DON'T RUN
Amid these turbulent 100 days, one would think the Democrats could easily exploit the chaos and Trump's dipping poll numbers to better position themselves for the next cycle. One would be wrong. Charles C. W. Cooke checks in on the opposition:
All things being equal, it ought not to be too difficult for the Democrats to offer up a sober case against this administration. They could point to Trump's capricious trade war, which represents an unpopular unforced error that has sowed uncertainty in the markets and which has undermined what was previously considered to be the president's core political competency. They could lambast the White House's flirtation with defying the federal judiciary, which is not merely an outrage on its own terms but has put a dent in Trump's hitherto impressive approval ratings on the border. Or they could take aim at his equivocation on the matter of Ukraine — with particular attention paid to his grotesque refusal to state clearly that the invasion, and the war that it engendered, are squarely Vladimir Putin's fault.
Instead, they have chosen to return to the hyperbole, self-indulgence, catastrophizing, and fan-servicing that cost them the election last year.
In New Hampshire this weekend, Governor J. B. Pritzker told a crowd of cheering fans that "Republicans cannot know a moment of peace," before suggesting that Donald Trump is a "madman," that he is presiding over a "shameful episode of American history," and that, soon, all portraits of the president and his party will be placed in "museum halls reserved for tyrants and traitors." Reporting on the address, the press invariably noted that Pritzker sounded as if he were running for president. But, in fact, this is only half true. Rather, Pritzker sounded as if he were running to be nominated for president. And, as recent history has confirmed, those two things are decidedly not the same. Without doubt, the suggestion that anyone involved with the opposition party ought to be denied even "a moment of peace" will prove popular among the peculiar partisan monomaniacs who voluntarily attend political dinners in New Hampshire three years before the next season. Among the broader public, by contrast, it may sound rather silly. If the polls are to be believed, voters do not much like Donald Trump's eschatological side. One suspects that they won't like Pritzker's, either.
Alas, eschatology is en vogue this season.
Abigail Anthony digs into a newly released HHS report on "gender-affirming care":
There is not strong evidence that "gender-affirming care" for minors is effective for treating gender dysphoria or improving mental health, according to a report issued on Thursday by the Department of Health and Human Services, based on a review of existing literature.
The researchers found that existing studies suffer from bias and methodological errors, while the literature also fails to appropriately consider potential "harms" such as the loss of sexual function.
"The 'gender-affirming' model of care includes irreversible endocrine and surgical interventions on minors with no physical pathology," reads the report's foreword. "These interventions carry risk of significant harms including infertility/sterility, sexual dysfunction, impaired bone density accrual, adverse cognitive impacts, cardiovascular disease and metabolic disorders, psychiatric disorders, surgical complications, and regret. Meanwhile, systematic reviews of the evidence have revealed deep uncertainty about the purported benefits of these interventions."
In an executive order titled "Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation," issued on January 28, President Trump announced that the secretary of health and human services would publish a review of "the existing literature on best practices for promoting the health of children who assert gender dysphoria, rapid-onset gender dysphoria, or other identity-based confusion" within 90 days.
"Given the toxicity of this issue, and in order to allow for a peer-review process that focuses on the substance of this report, the names of the contributors are not being released at this time," a source familiar with the report told National Review.
Like the Cass Review commissioned by the U.K. National Health Service on gender-related medical care for minors that concluded "this is an area of remarkably weak evidence" in 2024, the HHS report found that "the overall quality of evidence concerning the effects of any intervention on psychological outcomes, quality of life, regret, or long-term health, is very low. "
"Proponents of PMT often describe it as lifesaving. Some physicians recommending PMT have urged anxious parents to consent to irreversible interventions for their distressed children, warning that not doing so may increase the risk of suicide," reads the report. "Such claims are not supported by the evidence and have been criticized as unethical."
Additionally, the HHS report, titled "Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices," notes a blind spot in the existing studies: Most fail to appropriately consider any potential harms.
With the Canadian election results, there's plenty of blame to go around, on both sides of the border. From NR's editorial:
Even if Canadians haven't been taking Donald Trump literally when he promises to make their country the "cherished 51st state," they have been taking him seriously.
Trump personally played an enormous role in returning an incompetent and ideologically bankrupt Liberal Party to power, after a campaign where Prime Minister Mark Carney made himself the anti-Trump and Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre couldn't adjust to Trump's truly bizarre late intervention. . . .
Carney's case to voters was that he was the guy to trust in tough times because he would stand up to Donald Trump. And that was just barely enough to get voters to overlook ten years of economic stagnation under Liberal governments and cast their ballots for Carney.
Poilievre deserved better. Despite Conservatives' gaining far more seats than Liberals and recording their best popular vote share in a generation, he lost his seat by just 3,000 votes in a race with over 90 candidates on the ballot. His platform of law and order, free markets, tighter control of immigration, and pushing back on the left's social excesses was the exact medicine that Canada needed. And voters were responding to it positively, with polls earlier this year predicting a Conservative majority.
Then, Donald Trump gave the Liberals a gift. They no longer had to worry about defending their abysmal record. They could run defending their country's existence. Canadian nationalism is anti-American and left-wing. When Canadians rally around the flag, they rally around the Liberals, who designed the current Canadian flag and imposed it on the country in 1965 over right-wing opposition.
In the end, the ultimate responsibility for Canada's direction lies with its own voters. They have chosen to do the same thing once again. That they let themselves get baited into it by Trump is no excuse and won't lead to any better outcomes.
John Fund looks into an exodus:
Election to the U.S. Senate used to be considered the apex of a political career, bringing with it prestige, powerful committee chairmanships, and a national stage. Only the presidency was thought to be further up the political ladder. But that's changing.
This year, three senators — Michael Bennet of Colorado, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, and Tommy Tuberville of Alabama — have indicated that they will run for governor of their home states. They are trying to join Mike Braun of Indiana, who left the Senate after being elected governor last November. This is a complete reversal of the normal trend. Since 1900, governors have been over seven times more likely to become senators than vice versa.
Additionally, five senators have announced plans to retire next year. Two of them — Tina Smith of Minnesota and Gary Peters of Michigan — are leaving, even though each has only served two terms and they are only in their mid-60s.
Why has membership in what has been called the "world's greatest deliberative body" become devalued?
The Senate has become synonymous with gridlock.
Braun, a former businessman who served one term in the Senate before running for the governorship of Indiana, says he found the Senate stifling. He agrees with Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has complained that "it takes forever to get anything done."
In 2024, Braun posted on X that "in the 5 years I've been here, the Senate Budget Committee has failed to make a single budget. Not one." He introduced legislation he called "No Budget, No Pay" to hold Congress accountable for failing to pass budgets on time. It never came up for a vote. When the Senate does act, Braun said, it rushes through bills late at night. Committee hearings are often perfunctory, and senators often vote on legislation they haven't read or fully vetted. He noted that the failure to follow "regular order" has fueled the growth of the national debt, which is now $37 trillion.
Governors are action figures compared with senators, who can look like mere talking machines.
Braun's decision to run for governor was clear "when I measured what I could accomplish in six more years here, I think I can do more by going back home." Governors are executives with real power to implement decisions, they control their own schedules, and they are not bound by a seniority system, such as the one that rules the Senate, that can force members to work for decades to create a legacy.
CODA
There's a great monthly flea market by my house that's well-stocked with records from the '60s and '70s, reasonably priced. I picked up Idlewild South the last time the circus came to town — not initially realizing it contained one of my all-time fave Allman Brothers songs. Maybe it's one of yours, too. It was good to reconnect with it.
Commentaires
Enregistrer un commentaire
Thank you to leave a comment on my site