Trump Employs Familiar Tactics to Promote Fresh Agenda
Once known for his provocative style, the president is now reshaping his image to that of an ideologue.
TroibNews 
When the 2024 election saw an ex-president returning to the presidency, many Americans—regardless of their opinions on Donald Trump—likely thought they understood what to expect.
However, it became evident that they did not know the full picture.
The initial 43 days of his second term have unveiled a president deeply engaged with significant ideas that were occasionally but not predominantly present during his first term. This iteration of Trump is more focused, intent on dismantling substantial parts of the federal government and radically altering U.S. relations globally concerning trade and security. He appears committed to executing these ideas relentlessly while asserting expansive new powers for himself as president.
This new version of an established figure—a former improvisationalist now transformed into a dedicated ideologue—added a layer of intrigue to his address during a joint session of Congress. The question was how he would convey the various provocations of his initial six weeks, which included threats to withdraw support from Ukraine, imposing large tariffs on trading partners, and significant cuts to federal agencies, to a nationwide audience.
He managed to do so in ways that underscored the power of the presidency as a platform for national discourse, particularly in a manner that his predecessor Joe Biden struggled to harness. In contrast, Trump’s performance—marked by bravado, indignation, and an ability to tap into popular frustrations—underscored why he has confounded opponents across party lines for the last decade.
This version of Trump selected examples of federal expenditure that sounded questionable, such as a claimed $20 million for an Arab edition of “Sesame Street” in the Middle East. He claimed that Social Security databases included millions of individuals purportedly over the age of 120. Waging a cultural war, he vowed to confront educational systems he accused of promoting gender fluidity among confused adolescents against their parents' wishes.
His speech, infused with a MAGA-inspired reinterpretation of conservatism, resembled a classic Ronald Reagan address recast for a late-night audience at a tavern in Queens. He made several references to Biden, branding him “the worst president in American history.” He correctly pointed out that attempts to cross the border from Mexico had significantly decreased since he took office and claimed that Democrats had allowed “murderers, drug dealers, gang members and people from mental institutions and insane asylums … into our country. Who would want to do that?”
The speech primarily aimed to connect with Trump’s 2024 coalition, which consists of a large number of voters who resonate with his grievances and are passionately loyal to him, alongside enough additional voters who may not hold a positive view of Trump but perceive Democrats as being too disconnected to be a viable alternative.
There was noticeably little language intended to persuade Democrats to find common ground with him. It was evident that the only route to collaboration would be for them to concede their previous positions and acknowledge Trump’s success. Instead, he appeared to use the opposition party merely as props for his speech.
“I look at the Democrats in front of me, and I realize there is absolutely nothing I can say to make them happy, or to make them stand or smile or applaud,” Trump quipped. “I could find a cure to the most devastating disease, a disease that would wipe out entire nations, or announce the answers to the greatest economy in history, or the stoppage of crime to the lowest levels ever recorded. And these people sitting right here will not clap, will not stand and certainly will not cheer for these astronomical achievements.”
Trump’s aggressive rhetorical style sometimes obscures his capacity as a shrewdly defensive politician. He called out Elon Musk during the speech but refrained from offering a comprehensive defense of controversial aspects of his administration’s attempts to use the Department of Government Efficiency to significantly reduce the federal workforce or the White House’s efforts to undermine the independence of historically insulated federal agencies. These initiatives are currently mired in legal disputes likely to be resolved by the Supreme Court justices who observed Trump’s address from the front row.
Instead, he positioned himself as a champion of common sense, emphasizing examples of foreign aid spending that resonate poorly with many Americans, like “$8 million to promote LGBTQI+ in the African nation of Lesotho, which nobody has ever heard of.”
He eagerly discussed cultural matters, such as his executive orders designating English as the country’s official language and asserting that federal policy recognizes “only two genders—male and female.” However, he did not touch on his opposition to legal abortion, a central issue that has sustained the conservative movement for decades.
Last week, Trump dominated headlines globally when he and Vice President JD Vance publicly criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as ungrateful and threatened to withdraw further U.S. support for Ukraine in its struggle against the Russian invasion. Yet, in his speech, Trump disclosed that Zelenskyy had written him a letter of appreciation and expressed readiness for Trump’s involvement in mediating peace talks.
For as long as Trump has been a public figure—dating back to the 1980s, well before he formally entered the political arena—he has displayed enduring political instincts. He has consistently warned that America risks decline by allowing other nations to exploit its advantages and has rarely shied away from contentious cultural discussions.
Even during his first term, however, these instincts did not always align into a comprehensive ideological framework. He appointed conservative judges and initiated, but did not complete, a promised wall at the southern border. His interests often appeared sporadic, shifting with the news cycle.
It has now become clear that the four years he spent outside of power were dedicated—both by him and key figures in his administration—to a detailed strategy for what they would implement if he were to regain the presidency. As evidenced by his recent speech, he is confident in his capacity to market a bold and divisive agenda to a majority of Americans.
Ian Smith contributed to this report for TROIB News
However, it became evident that they did not know the full picture.
The initial 43 days of his second term have unveiled a president deeply engaged with significant ideas that were occasionally but not predominantly present during his first term. This iteration of Trump is more focused, intent on dismantling substantial parts of the federal government and radically altering U.S. relations globally concerning trade and security. He appears committed to executing these ideas relentlessly while asserting expansive new powers for himself as president.
This new version of an established figure—a former improvisationalist now transformed into a dedicated ideologue—added a layer of intrigue to his address during a joint session of Congress. The question was how he would convey the various provocations of his initial six weeks, which included threats to withdraw support from Ukraine, imposing large tariffs on trading partners, and significant cuts to federal agencies, to a nationwide audience.
He managed to do so in ways that underscored the power of the presidency as a platform for national discourse, particularly in a manner that his predecessor Joe Biden struggled to harness. In contrast, Trump’s performance—marked by bravado, indignation, and an ability to tap into popular frustrations—underscored why he has confounded opponents across party lines for the last decade.
This version of Trump selected examples of federal expenditure that sounded questionable, such as a claimed $20 million for an Arab edition of “Sesame Street” in the Middle East. He claimed that Social Security databases included millions of individuals purportedly over the age of 120. Waging a cultural war, he vowed to confront educational systems he accused of promoting gender fluidity among confused adolescents against their parents' wishes.
His speech, infused with a MAGA-inspired reinterpretation of conservatism, resembled a classic Ronald Reagan address recast for a late-night audience at a tavern in Queens. He made several references to Biden, branding him “the worst president in American history.” He correctly pointed out that attempts to cross the border from Mexico had significantly decreased since he took office and claimed that Democrats had allowed “murderers, drug dealers, gang members and people from mental institutions and insane asylums … into our country. Who would want to do that?”
The speech primarily aimed to connect with Trump’s 2024 coalition, which consists of a large number of voters who resonate with his grievances and are passionately loyal to him, alongside enough additional voters who may not hold a positive view of Trump but perceive Democrats as being too disconnected to be a viable alternative.
There was noticeably little language intended to persuade Democrats to find common ground with him. It was evident that the only route to collaboration would be for them to concede their previous positions and acknowledge Trump’s success. Instead, he appeared to use the opposition party merely as props for his speech.
“I look at the Democrats in front of me, and I realize there is absolutely nothing I can say to make them happy, or to make them stand or smile or applaud,” Trump quipped. “I could find a cure to the most devastating disease, a disease that would wipe out entire nations, or announce the answers to the greatest economy in history, or the stoppage of crime to the lowest levels ever recorded. And these people sitting right here will not clap, will not stand and certainly will not cheer for these astronomical achievements.”
Trump’s aggressive rhetorical style sometimes obscures his capacity as a shrewdly defensive politician. He called out Elon Musk during the speech but refrained from offering a comprehensive defense of controversial aspects of his administration’s attempts to use the Department of Government Efficiency to significantly reduce the federal workforce or the White House’s efforts to undermine the independence of historically insulated federal agencies. These initiatives are currently mired in legal disputes likely to be resolved by the Supreme Court justices who observed Trump’s address from the front row.
Instead, he positioned himself as a champion of common sense, emphasizing examples of foreign aid spending that resonate poorly with many Americans, like “$8 million to promote LGBTQI+ in the African nation of Lesotho, which nobody has ever heard of.”
He eagerly discussed cultural matters, such as his executive orders designating English as the country’s official language and asserting that federal policy recognizes “only two genders—male and female.” However, he did not touch on his opposition to legal abortion, a central issue that has sustained the conservative movement for decades.
Last week, Trump dominated headlines globally when he and Vice President JD Vance publicly criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as ungrateful and threatened to withdraw further U.S. support for Ukraine in its struggle against the Russian invasion. Yet, in his speech, Trump disclosed that Zelenskyy had written him a letter of appreciation and expressed readiness for Trump’s involvement in mediating peace talks.
For as long as Trump has been a public figure—dating back to the 1980s, well before he formally entered the political arena—he has displayed enduring political instincts. He has consistently warned that America risks decline by allowing other nations to exploit its advantages and has rarely shied away from contentious cultural discussions.
Even during his first term, however, these instincts did not always align into a comprehensive ideological framework. He appointed conservative judges and initiated, but did not complete, a promised wall at the southern border. His interests often appeared sporadic, shifting with the news cycle.
It has now become clear that the four years he spent outside of power were dedicated—both by him and key figures in his administration—to a detailed strategy for what they would implement if he were to regain the presidency. As evidenced by his recent speech, he is confident in his capacity to market a bold and divisive agenda to a majority of Americans.
Ian Smith contributed to this report for TROIB News
