Trump Is Using Fear To Cover His Weakness - It May Be His Undoing

The following is part of an excellent post by Thomas Hartmann at The Hartmann Report:

Trump and his people, with all their strut and swagger, want you to think he’s the most powerful man in America and will continue in power indefinitely. Don’t believe it.

The reason he’s rushing so hard and fast to spread his secret, masked police across American cities while mobilizing the military against civilians is precisely because he’s so extraordinarily weak.

— It’s why he’s breaking laws left and right, from laws against bribery to the Hatch Act to Posse Comitatus. 

— It’s why he’s trying to provoke a military confrontation with Venezuela, the same as Reagan did with Grenada two days after the Beirut Marine barracks bombing.

— It’s why he’s trying to distract us from the Epstein Files and the reality that a third of America’s states are in or nearly in recession.

 

— It’s why every time a report comes out about inflation continuing to spike, unaffordable housing, or job growth stalling out, he comes up with some new outrageous shiny object to dangle in front of the media. 

Trump, in fact, is pretty much unique among both modern and historic figures who rode elective office to power and then turned their nations into dictatorships.

 Nonewere as weak as Trump is today when they succeeded in consolidating enough power to eliminate their challengers and lock down the populace. . . .

Trump’s approval rating is consistently low, even though he keeps lying about it as he claims a broad mandate. He didn’t even break 50% of the popular vote in 2024, and lost the popular vote in 2016.

As of October 20, 2025, 44.2% approved and 52.1% disapproved of his presidency, according to Nate Silver’s Silver Bulletin. The RealClearPolitics average gives him around 45%, while Gallup finds 40%, making him one of the least popular U.S. presidents at this stage in all of our history.

His economic approval has sunk to 34%, with 62% disapproving of his behavior amid inflation and federal shutdown unrest. Unlike his predecessors or authoritarians in other countries that lost their democracies, his base remains intense but small; there’s no evidence of majoritarian enthusiasm existing outside of his core partisan bloc.

The few Republicans willing to defy him and speak up about Trump’s unpopularity (and that of his policies) are often blunt and even see their own popularity increase because of their resistance. . . .

So, how does Trump hold onto power and the loyalty of Republican politicians?

Fear, it turns out, is the cement that’s holding the GOP together under Trump.

His indictment of lifelong Republican James Comey and his pardon of criminal grifter George Santos were unambiguous messages to every Republican politician in the nation. He was saying, in effect 

“Stay with me and keep licking my boots and I’ll keep you safe even if you commit horrible crimes; cross me and I’ll destroy you.”

So far, it’s working. . . .

But politicians like Trump (and his lickspittles) eventually find themselves trapped by the very fear they’ve used to paralyze their party members into compliance or silence. As Winston Churchill famously said:

“You see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police ... yet in their hearts there is unspoken fear. They are afraid of words and thoughts: words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home — all the more powerful because forbidden — terrify them. A little mouse of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic.”

This is why Trump, as noted above, is building such a massive police and military presence, along with constructing hundreds of new concentration camps across America. . . .

Fearful men always lean on violence and the threat of violence because eventually the spell of the fear they’re trying to cast across the nation is broken. . . .

When enough people stand up against state terrorism to hit a critical mass (3.5% of the population, according to political scientist Erica Chenoweth), others quickly join them. The turnout for the No Kings marches suggest we’re close to that. . . .

So, take heart. The No Kings marches proved both Trump’s widespread unpopularity and the fearlessness of an American public echoing over two centuries of our nation standing up to tinpot despots and wannabe dictators.

We Americans have never tolerated a king or a dictator, and we’re not about to start now.

Trump Wants To Be A Strongman But His Failures Show His Weakness

 

During his campaign, Donald Trump promised to solve all the country's big problems - both at home and abroad. He thought he could use the plan in Project 2025 to get it done. But after numerous executive orders and meetings, he has yet to accomplish a single one of his promises.

He promised to end this country's trade deficit with other countries. He instituted a 10% tariff on nearly every country in the world (whether we had a trade deficit with them or not), and imposed an even higher tariff on many countries (even our best allies). He has since backed down, reimposed, and backed-off the tariffs. He had expected all the other countries would flock to the White House and beg for a deal. That hasn't happened, and to date, not a single trade deal has been signed with any country.

He promised to lower the prices of groceries and other goods. But prices keep going up. Last month the inflation was over 2% more that May of 2024. And it very likely will get worse as importers start to have to pay the tariffs imposed.

He promised to deport a million undocumented immigrants a year, and said they would be the dangerous criminals that we don't want in this country. But he has fallen far short of his deportation goal, even though the arrest and deportation of noncriminals has skyrocketed by 800%. Polls are now showing most Americans don't like the cruel way the deportations are being done, or who is being deported (it's not the criminals).

He said he would end the Russian invasion of Ukraine on day one of his presidency. In his ignorance, he thought his buddy Putin would stop when asked and settle for the territory he has seized. But while Putin continues to flatter Trump, he has ignored his pleas to stop the war. Putin continues his bombing of Ukrainian citizens and his efforts to seize more territory.

Trump promised to broker a peace in Gaza. But his "friend" Netanyahu has also ignored him. Netanyahu has re-invaded Gaza, and continues to not let adequate food and medicine to enter. And he is now bombing Iran - even though Trump asked him not to do that.

Trump has claimed to be a great negotiator and deal-maker, but all negotiations have failed and no deals have been made. He has failed in everything he has tried. The one possible exception is his attack on American citizen's rights - and even that remains tied up in the court system.

Trump's fervent desire is to be a strongman (like the dictators he admires), but his string of failures show his real weakness.

Trump Approval Is Underwater Nut Democrats Approval Is Even Worse

 

The charts above reflect the results of the CNN / SSRS Poll -- done between March 6th and 9th of a nationwide sample of 1,206 adults, with a 3.3 point margin of error.

Job approval for Donald Trump is dropping - and now several polls have shown that more people disapprove of the job he is doing than approve of it.

One might think that is good for Democrats. Not so. Polls are now showing that the Democratic Party is even more unpopular than Trump. The CNN poll (shown above) shows that only 29% of adults (and only 30% of registered voters) approve of the Democrats.

Why is this?

The pundits are saying the Democrats are "elitist" and have lost touch with the working man. I don't believe that. How much more elitist can you get than the Republican Party - run by billionaire oligarchs only interested in feathering their own nest?

I believe it is something more fundamental than issues. After all, a majority of voters actually oppose most issues put forward by Trump and the Republican Party.

Congressional Democrats, especially their leaders, are seen as soft -- unwilling to fight hard for the things they say they believe in. And that image was not helped when Senate Democrats rolled over and surrendered to the GOP on the continuing resolution.

I understand the Democrats were left with two bad choices - shutting down the government or allowing a terrible resolution to pass. Both would have been bad for the American people. But the path they chose was one that made them look weak and ineffectual. They would have been much better off to fight against the resolution - even if it meant a shutdown and eventually losing. At least they would have been seen to be fighters.

When the Republicans were out of power, they fought the Democrats on every issue. They didn't Winn a lot, but they came off as being fighters. And that helped them to return to power.

Democrats must do the same. Oppose the Trump/Republican agenda and make them work hard to pass anything. If you can't defeat it, then delay it with every legal and political maneuver possible. Make life hard for Trump and the GOP - and keep doing it time after time. And do it loudly, so the public sees it.

The voting public doesn't have to agree with you on everything to vote for you. But they must believe you are a fighter. They won't vote for someone (either an individual or a party) that is perceived as weak or cowardly. Unfortunately, that's how Democrats are currently perceived.

U.S./NATO Are Giving Putin The Idea They Are Weak/Afraid

In 1938, the United Kingdom and France signed the Munich Agreement (with Germany and Italy). The agreement, now known as the "appeasement", allowed Germany to seize the Sudetenland part of Czechoslovakia. They thought giving that land to Hitler would prevent him from starting another World War. They were wrong. It just made Hitler think the U.K. and France were weak, and only a year later he invaded Poland, starting World War II.

We seem to be seeing a repeat of history -- only this time it is Putin and Ukraine. The Western nations expect Putin's army to be successful in taking Ukraine, and they seem to be willing to let Putin gobble up that nation. They say opposing his aggression militarily would start a war -- possibly a world war. Isn't this just a modern version of appeasement?

The U.S. and NATO have applied some economic sanctions to Russia and are sending some weapons to Ukraine. The sanctions are meaningless. Putin is one of the richest men in the world, and if he were to lose 90% of his wealth, he would still be a very rich man. The sanctions will hurt the Russian people, but Putin doesn't care about them. He has an iron grip on power in that country, and if he can get the territory he wants, he's willing to let the Russian people suffer.

While the West is sending some weapons, they have refused to institute a no-fly zone because they think Putin would consider than an aggression. They also are refusing to allow Poland to send Soviet era jets to Ukraine (which Ukrainian pilots know how to use), for the same reason.

This is giving Putin the idea that NATO and the U.S. are weak and afraid of him. That will not stop him in Ukraine, and it will not keep him from attacking another country once successful there. Tyrants don't respect appeasement. It just makes them bolder. The only thing they respect is strength.

I'm not suggesting that NATO and the U.S. invade Russia. That would be dumb (and wrong). But they should at least institute a no-fly zone over Ukraine -- and let Ukraine have the Soviet era MIG's. 

Would Putin use nuclear weapons as he has threatened? NO! He knows that doing so would mean an instant reprisal from the United States (and he would no longer have a country)!

The West must show Putin they are brave enough and strong enough to defend democracy -- in Ukraine and elsewhere. That is the only way to stop a new world war. Anything less is just another step down the road to that war. Appeasement does not work! 

Should The Russian Military Be Feared? - NO!

Three weeks ago, Russia had one of the most feared militaries in the world -- matched only by those from the United States and China. That is no longer true. The weakness of Russia's military has been exposed by the brave citizens of Ukraine. Even though badly outnumbered in soldiers and weapons, Ukrainians have put up a strong fight, and are doing much better against the Russian military than anyone thought they could. Part of this is due to unexpected Ukrainian resistance, but most is due to the Russian military not being as effective as was thought.

The following is part of an article in The New York Times on this:

When it comes to war, generals say that “mass matters.”

But nearly two weeks into President Vladimir V. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine — Europe’s largest land war since 1945 — the image of a Russian military as one that other countries should fear, let alone emulate, has been shattered.

Ukraine’s military, which is dwarfed by the Russian force in most ways, has somehow managed to stymie its opponent. Ukrainian soldiers have killed more than 3,000 Russian troops, according to conservative estimates by American officials.

Ukraine has shot down military transport planes carrying Russian paratroopers, downed helicopters and blown holes in Russia’s convoys using American anti-tank missiles and armed drones supplied by Turkey, these officials said, citing confidential U.S. intelligence assessments.

The Russian soldiers have been plagued by poor morale as well as fuel and food shortages. Some troops have crossed the border with MREs (meals ready to eat) that expired in 2002, U.S. and other Western officials said, and others have surrendered and sabotaged their own vehicles to avoid fighting.

To be sure, most military experts say that Russia will eventually subdue Ukraine’s army. Russia’s military, at 900,000 active duty troops and two million reservists, is eight times the size of Ukraine’s. Russia has advanced fighter planes, a formidable navy and marines capable of multiple amphibious landings, as they proved early in the invasion when they launched from the Black Sea and headed toward the city of Mariupol. . . .

But with each day that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky holds out, the scenes of a frustrated Russia pounding, but not managing to finish off, a smaller opponent dominate screens around the world.

The result: Militaries in Europe that once feared Russia say they are not as intimidated by Russian ground forces as they were in the past.

That Russia has so quickly abandoned surgical strikes, instead killing civilians trying to flee, could damage Mr. Putin’s chances of winning a long-term war in Ukraine. The brutal tactics may eventually overwhelm Ukraine’s defenses, but they will almost certainly fuel a bloody insurgency that could bog down Russia for years, military analysts say. Most of all, Russia has exposed to its European neighbors and American rivals gaps in its military strategy that can be exploited in future battles. . . .

“The Kremlin spent the last 20 years trying to modernize its military,” said Andrei V. Kozyrev, the foreign minister for Russia under Boris Yeltsin, in a post on Twitter. “Much of that budget was stolen and spent on mega-yachts in Cyprus. But as a military advisor you cannot report that to the President. So they reported lies to him instead. Potemkin military.”. . .

A dissection of the Russian military’s performance so far, compiled from interviews with two dozen American, NATO and Ukrainian officials, paints a portrait of young, inexperienced conscripted soldiers who have not been empowered to make on-the-spot decisions, and a noncommissioned officer corps that isn’t allowed to make decisions either. Russia’s military leadership, with Gen. Valery Gerasimov at the top, is far too centralized; lieutenants must ask him for permission even on small matters, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss operational matters.

In addition, the Russian senior officers have proved so far to be risk-averse, the officials said.

Their caution partly explains why they still don’t have air superiority over all of Ukraine, for example, American officials said. Faced with bad weather in northern Ukraine, the Russian officers grounded some Russian attack planes and helicopters, and forced others to fly at lower altitudes, making them more vulnerable to Ukrainian ground fire, a senior Pentagon official said. . . .

Russian tank units, for instance, have deployed with too few soldiers to fire and protect the tanks, officials said. The result is that Ukraine, using Javelin anti-tank missiles, has stalled the convoy headed for Kyiv by blowing up tank after tank.

Putin's Big Mistake Was Exposing His Military's Weakness

The Western nations already knew Russia was not an economic power -- and its economy will likely be destroyed by the world's reaction to its invasion of Ukraine. But Putin made have made an even bigger mistake. His invasion has showed the world that his military is not as powerful as they had thought.

Here is part of how Paul Krugman describes this in The New York Times:

Before Putin invaded Ukraine, I might have described the Russian Federation as a medium-size power punching above its weight in part by exploiting Western divisions and corruption, in part by maintaining a powerful military. Since then, however, two things have become clear. First, Putin has delusions of grandeur. Second, Russia is even weaker than most people, myself included, seem to have realized.

It has long been obvious that Putin desperately wants to restore Russia’s status as a Great Power. His already infamous “there is no such thing as Ukraine” speech, in which he condemned Lenin (!) for giving his neighbor what Putin considers a false sense of national identity, made it clear that his aims go beyond recreating the Soviet Union — he apparently wants to recreate the czarist empire. And he apparently thought that he could take a big step toward that goal with a short, victorious war.

So far, it hasn’t worked out as planned. Ukrainian resistance has been fierce; Russia’s military has been less effective than advertised. I’ve been especially struck by reports that the early days of the invasion were hampered by severe logistical problems— that is, the invaders had a hard time providing their forces with the essentials of modern war, above all fuel. It’s true that supply problems are common in war; still, logistics is one thing advanced nations are supposed to be really good at.

But Russia is looking less and less like an advanced nation.

The truth is that I was being generous in describing Russia as even a medium-size power. Britain and France are medium-size powers; Russia’s gross domestic product is only a bit more than half as large as either’s. It seemed remarkable that such an economically underweight state could support a world-class, highly sophisticated military — and maybe it couldn’t.

That’s not to deny that the force ravaging Ukraine has immense firepower, and it may well take Kyiv. But I wouldn’t be surprised if post-mortems on the Ukraine war eventually show that there was a lot more rot at the heart of Putin’s military than anyone realized.

And Russia is starting to look even weaker economically than it did before it went to war. . . .

 Putin may well take Kyiv. But even if he does, he will have made himself weaker, not stronger. Russia now stands revealed as a Potemkin superpower, with far less real strength than meets the eye.

The GOP Is Weak On Terrorism (Because They Vote Republican)

 The Republican Party used to call themselves the party of "law and order". They're going to have to abandon that label, because they are very weak on controlling terrorism. The biggest terrorist threat for the last few years has been from right-wing groups -- especially racist and white supremacist groups. The Republicans have tried to hide that fact, and even after the insurrection by those groups at the Capitol, they don't want to clamp down on those groups. Why? Because those terrorist elements vote Republican, and the GOP doesn't want to alienate any part of their base.

The following is part of an op-ed by Jennifer Rubin in The Washington Post:

The Republican attitude about the attack on the Capitol is entirely at odds with the reality of the threat we face. As the danger of domestic terrorism rises, Senate Republicans are still foot-dragging on the confirmation of Alejandro Mayorkas to be homeland security secretary. . . .

This raises the question: Are Republicans comfortable with the moniker “weak on terror”? It seems so, at least when it is white supremacists who are the terrorists. Given the growing threat of domestic terrorists linked to the Jan. 6 action, Republicans’ indifference toward addressing domestic terrorism and punishing the former president for stoking a violent insurrection is as breathtaking as it is predictable. The Republican Party’s notion of “law and order” seems to have evaporated. . . .

Perhaps their excuse for acquitting the former president is not so much based on the argument that the Senate cannot convict a former president (a flimsy rationale easily rebutted by precedent and the text of the Constitution), but instead on their own aversion to tackling white supremacists. After courting the MAGA crowd, doing their bidding in seeking to overturn the election and taking offense at President Biden’s innocuous comments denouncing white supremacists who attacked the Capitol, perhaps Republicans are nervous that the impeachment trial hits a little too close to home. When Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) raises a fist in solidarity with the Confederate flag-waving, noose-carrying crowd, the problem goes well beyond the former president.

By averting their eyes from the former president who instigated an attempted violent coup, they are “putting themselves on the wrong side of the American people and also of history,” (Senator) Blumenthal says. Even if the Senate cannot convict the ex-president, “There is real virtue in a public trial regardless of the outcome.”

Indeed, one could make the case that it is not simply Trump who should be on trial. The Republican Party as a whole needs to be held responsible for feeding anti-immigrant sentiment, coddling armed white supremacists, perpetrating the Big Lie that the election was stolen and, yes, refusing to hold the instigator of a domestic terrorist attack responsible. They are not simply weak on domestic terrorism; their indifference makes us all less safe.

U.S. (& World) Should Be Frightened By Helsinki Summit

(Cartoon image is by Jimmy Margulies at jimmymargulies.com.)

The people of the United States, and the world, should be terrified at what they saw from Donald Trump in Helsinki. Never has an American president been seen to so obviously grovel to a Russian leader. Trump showed weakness by accepting Putin's denials, and seemed to embrace Putin as America's new best friend, while blaming U.S. intelligence, past presidents, Democrats, and the Mueller investigation as the reason why relations are bad between the two countries -- completely ignoring Russia seizing the Crimea, attacking the Ukraine, supporting Assad in Syria, and attacking our own democracy (as though these did not contribute to that poor relationship).

Ina tweet, Trump tried to blame the media (fake news) for the world being horrified at his appeasement of Putin. That won't fly. The entire world watched the press conference, and they saw him embracing Putin -- after attacking our best allies only a couple of days before. Putin, as the cartoon above shows, wiped the floor with Trump. Trump is either a weak and ignorant fool, or he's terrified that Putin will release some secret they know about him -- maybe both!

Here's is part of an incisive op-ed by Max Boot in The Washington Post:

If anyone is “the enemy of the people,” it is Trump himself.

Those are words I never thought I would write about an American president — even one as boorish and bigoted as Trump. But after his appalling performance in Helsinki at what CNN’s John King aptly called the “surrender summit,” questions about Trump’s loyalty to the American people will only intensify. Indeed, the question came up at the news conference itself. The Associated Press’s Jonathan Lemire courageously asked “does the Russian government have any compromising material on President Trump or his family?”. . .

The Russian president dismissed the issue as “nonsense,” but it was his answer that was nonsensical. Putin said that he was not even aware that Trump was in Moscow in 2013 for the Miss Universe pageant when it has been previously reported that Trump invited him to attend. Putin declined but, according to The Post, he did send “a ‘friendly’ letter and a gift of a Russian lacquered box” to Trump. . . .

The sellout in Helsinki only adds further credence to this speculation about the true nature of Trump-Putin ties. Not only did Trump fail to call out the Russian strongman for his many crimes — he also attacked the FBI and accepted Putin’s assurances that Russia was not responsible for interfering in the U.S. election even though the U.S. intelligence community has provided overwhelming evidence that it did. “President Putin, he just said it’s not Russia,” Trump said. “I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be.”

We are past the point when such statements can be dismissed as naivete — especially when Trump has previously admitted that Russia did hack the election. We are past the point where Trump’s conduct can be ascribed to his belief that it is imperative to improve U.S.-Russia relations. If Trump doesn’t care about the state of U.S.-German relations, U.S.-Canadian relations or U.S.-U.K. relations — all of which he has damaged in the past month — why would he care about U.S. relations with a country that has one-fourteenth of America’s GDP and one-tenth of its defense budget? We are past the point where Trump’s conduct can be ascribed to his general sympathy for dictators. If he is waging a trade war on China’s dictator, why is he cozying up to Russia’s dictator?

We are past the point when Trump’s conduct — which leaves future elections wide open to Russian manipulation — can be ascribed to his unwillingness to do anything that will tarnish his glorious victory. It is true but insufficient to point out that that Trump’s unwillingness to acknowledge the Russian attack on America is putting his own interests above the country’s.

Even if Trump were thinking only in terms of his own political survival — his usual mode — he would be tougher on Putin, because he must realize that kowtowing to the Russian only strengthens suspicions of collusion. But Trump just cannot bring himself to do it. Is that because he hopes for more aid from Putin in the future — or because he is afraid of what Putin can reveal about him? Either way, he gives every impression of betraying his oath of office.

U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 3: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” Trump’s own national security adviser said the Russian election attack constituted an “act of war.” So what does that make his boss? Some — including former CIA director John Brennan — now dare call it treason. That conclusion was once unthinkable. No longer.

Trump Talks Big But Is Actually A Very Weak President

(The caricature of "Super-Trump" at left is by DonkeyHotey.)

No president has talked tougher or bragged more than Donald Trump. If you just listened to him, and didn't know that none of his promises have actually been accomplished, you might think he was a strong president. But that is simply not true. He may be the weakest president in modern times.

Here is just a part of an excellent article in New Republic by Elizabeth Drew:

At his rallies, presidential candidate Donald Trump excited his most avid supporters through displays of toughness: his calls when a demonstrator acted up to “get him out of here”; his incantations of his reality show signature “You’re fired”; his promises of robust actions on “Day One.” He promised his ecstatic followers that he’d tear up trade treaties and the Iran nuclear deal. He’d force other countries to renegotiate and he’d be tough in his dealings with them, just as he’d been in business. And he’d show those so-called NATO allies that the U.S. wasn’t committed to defending them—no more of the wishy-washy deference to other nations that Barack Obama had displayed for eight years. Also, on that busy Day One, he’d have a replacement for Obamacare ready for Congress to enact immediately. He’d pick the very best people but wouldn’t hesitate to get rid of someone who wasn’t up to the job. Above all, he’d be decisive, no vacillating figurehead. He’d be a man of action, tough and strong.

And then. . .

Trump not only didn’t have an alternative to Obamacare ready on his first day in office, he never offered one. Moreover, when House Republicans presented to him their own ideas about what should be in the health care bill, they found him to be an easy mark. This was in part because the president didn’t much care what was in the health care bill, he just wanted to sign one; he told aides that would make him look presidential. He’d said in the campaign that he’d produce a health care bill that was better and cheaper than Obamacare, but it turned out that Trump was unfamiliar with the substance of what was in the Affordable Care Act and didn’t grasp the import of proposed alternatives—and this crippled his ability to be a force on the subject. Or, as it’s turning out, most any subject. He keeps telling us what a fine mind he has, but if so he seems loath to exercise it much. His advisers on national security have been encouraged to put as much of their daily intelligence briefings in pictures and charts as they can. A president who doesn’t know what he doesn’t know isn’t in a very strong position to negotiate with others, or to lead. . . .

This depiction of Donald Trump as a weak president would no doubt shock his ardent followers, especially since Trump usually covers his retreats with bluster. It might also be a surprise to those who have worried that he’s a would-be autocrat. It turns out that Trump has neither the wit nor the grit to seize power, and he may be too lazy and too uninterested in governing to make much of it if he did. (He can, however, empower by default cabinet officials who do know what to do with the power at their disposal—for example, Sessions.) But, except for his use of executive orders (often to countermand ones by Obama) and his cyber-bullying, Trump is essentially a passive participant in his own government. His campaign against the press is of concern, but thus far he’s not taken action to curb its independence, nor have his threats to do so had any discernible impact on the rigorous job the press is doing of holding his presidency to account. In fact, all things taken together, it begins to seem as if the strongman of the rallies was a convenient deception, a figure that Trump invented but couldn’t maintain when it came to making actual decisions in the Oval Office.

If this approach to governing keeps up, Trump may find himself once again on a newsweekly cover—the kind of prominence he craves—but this time with a sobriquet that once ordained one of his predecessors: “WIMP.”