logo
Trump 2.0 is correcting Trump 1.0

Trump 2.0 is correcting Trump 1.0

CNN19-07-2025
The 47th president is in many ways a different man than the 45th president, even though they are both Donald J. Trump.
He's unafraid to swear in public or on social media and he's more emboldened, willing to directly challenge the Constitution and the courts and capable of demanding more loyalty from Republicans.
But Trump 2.0 is also in direct competition with his former self in several important ways, starting with the fact that he can't seem to remember appointing people he now loathes.
Trump's aides are looking at ways to oust Jay Powell, the Fed chairman Trump nominated to the role during his first term. Trump told House Republicans he had drafted a letter to take the unprecedented step of firing the chairman of the Federal Reserve. Markets beware.
At the White House Wednesday, Trump seemed to forget that he had nominated Powell.
'I was surprised he was appointed,' Trump said. 'I was surprised, frankly, that Biden put him in and extended him, but they did.' Biden renominated Powell. Either Trump can't remember or he is willing himself to forget his role in the process.
If Trump ultimately tests the Fed's independence and tries to fire Powell, he'll point to a building renovation that got underway during Trump's own first term.
Before Trump took office for the second time, the FBI director appointed during his first term, Christopher Wray, quit early rather than wait to be fired.
On the Supreme Court, CNN has reported on Trump's gripes behind closed doors about his nominee Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in particular.
When Trump today threatens burdensome tariffs on Canada and Mexico, who he accuses of 'taking advantage' of previous US presidents, he's also talking about his prior self.
Trump's first-term administration negotiated the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement — a reboot of NAFTA. Back then, it was hailed as the major accomplishment of his trade policy.
He has also evolved on issues including bitcoin and cryptocurrency, although that could have something to do with his family's business interests.
And Trump used to support banning TikTok in the US, but now, after making inroads with young men in the last election, he very much wants a US-based company to step up and buy the platform.
'He's undoing himself with a vengeance,' the CNN presidential historian Tim Naftali told me.
The relatively moderate mainstream policy hands who marked the first Trump term are on the outs. Outsiders and MAGA figureheads are in.
'Donald Trump clearly is angry about what his advisers forced him to do in the first term,' Naftali said, pointing specifically to trade policy.
'His approach to Canada and Mexico is inexplicable given his first term, unless you realize that he wasn't happy with what he ended up doing in the first term,' he said.
Naftali said Trump deserves credit for Operation Warp Speed, the effort to quickly develop a Covid-19 vaccine at a time when the country was largely shut down by the pandemic.
But rather than build on that legacy, Trump selected Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as his Health and Human Services director, elevating a vaccine skeptic to a top policy role.
Kennedy fired all the members of a CDC vaccine advisory panel and brought in vaccine skeptics to review the vaccine schedule.
I put the idea of Trump 2.0 correcting Trump 1.0 to a number of CNN reporters and anchors who pay close attention to foreign affairs, the economy and the environment.
CNN's Jim Sciutto, who wrote a book, The Madman Theory, about Trump's first-term foreign policy, notes that Trump is more aggressive this time, and appears to be more inclined to listen to his own gut.
SCIUTTO: In his second term, President Trump is proving less likely to be deterred by advisers or advice against his more aggressive moves in international affairs. And, so for instance, while (former White House Chief of Staff) Gen. John Kelly and (former national security adviser) John Bolton were able to counsel him away from summarily withdrawing from NATO in 2018, many — including those who served in his first administration — fear his current advisers won't stand in the way.
From foreign officials, the concern I hear most often is one of uncertainty. From tariffs to military support for Ukraine, they express doubts that what the president says today will hold tomorrow. Trade deals become fleeting agreements subject to where the financial markets are on any given day or how the White House reads domestic politics. And support for Ukraine — which European officials see as central to the security of the whole continent — rises and falls based on Trump's current interpretation of where Putin stands on peace talks.
Trump has proven his willingness to make hard decisions his predecessors avoided — the US strikes on Iran stand out. What observers at home and abroad are waiting for is a consistent and predictable worldview.
Allison Morrow, who writes the Nightcap newsletter for CNN Business, agrees there's a difference to this president, but he remains the same in one very important way.
MORROW: I agree with Tim Naftali, though I wonder how conscious Trump is of his attempts to undo USMCA, which itself was just a reshuffling of NAFTA. The Trump 2.0 tariff strategy, such as it is, doesn't make any sense in practice. If you really want to use tariffs to bring back US manufacturing, you can't be cutting deals, because then there's no incentive for companies to invest in domestic production. We've written about the contradictions at the heart of his tariff ideology dozens of times at this point, and there's just no response from the White House about how they think they can make tariffs do everything they claim, all at once. I think the thing that jumps out at me between Trump 1.0 and 2.0 is what hasn't changed.
Fundamentally, I think Trump wants to avoid accountability. And that's why he has sort of slow-walked the tariffs into the market's collective consciousness, and backed off when the bond markets shuddered. He's testing to see what he can get away with without causing a financial or economic catastrophe.
Trump and his aides also clearly learned from his first term. Instead of trying repeatedly to repeal Obamacare, they cut future spending from Medicaid, which will have a similar effect by pushing millions of lower-income Americans off their health insurance in the years to come.
CNN's Chief Media Analyst Brian Stelter noted that in this term, Trump is acting more forcefully against news outlets.
STELTER: Instead of merely tweeting insults at independent media outlets, he is taking concrete actions to penalize those outlets, while at the same time promoting and empowering MAGA commentators. Take the media story in the news right now: the imminent defunding of PBS and NPR. In Trump's first term, he harshly criticized public media, but those were just words, not actions. His administration also proposed annual budgets that would have zeroed out the funding, but didn't successfully pressure Congress to follow through.
In Trump's second term, he seemingly knows which buttons to press. He (or, probably more accurately, his aides) targeted the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in several different ways and sold Republican lawmakers on a DOGE-branded rescission that passed both the House and Senate.
CNN's Senior White House Correspondent Kristen Holmes isn't sure Trump is undoing his first term as much as he is better prepared this time.
HOLMES: Trump and his allies had four years to prepare for him to be president again. His allies used that time to create a framework for a second term agenda, as well as brainstorm potential roadblocks and work-arounds to those roadblocks, to ensure that they could start enacting his agenda on Day 1.
The first time around, even members of Trump's own campaign were surprised he won. They had almost no real transition and Trump had to rely on Washington Republicans, many of whom did not have the same ideas as him, to help fill out the cabinet and guide him. And while he knew what he wanted to do, he had no real understanding of how to get it done. Now, he is working in unison with almost every inch of his administration to get what he wants done — and it's working.
Holmes' point carries over to immigration, Trump's signature issue. He is more effectively carrying through with mass deportations than he did in his first term. With a more pliant Congress, he has money for his border wall, the go-ahead to turn ICE into the nation's largest and best-funded police force, and the help of Republican governors to create new detention centers to hold undocumented immigrants — not just violent criminals — he wants to deport. When he leaves office, the country will look a lot different after his second term than it did after his first.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Asian Stocks Set for Subdued Open Ahead of Fed: Markets Wrap
Asian Stocks Set for Subdued Open Ahead of Fed: Markets Wrap

Bloomberg

time26 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Asian Stocks Set for Subdued Open Ahead of Fed: Markets Wrap

Asian equities are set for a lackluster start ahead of the Federal Reserve's policy decision, with investors showing little enthusiasm for progress in US-China trade talks. Futures for Tokyo and Hong Kong equities pointed lower, while Sydney contracts were flat after the S&P 500 snapped a six-day rally, slipping 0.3%. Treasuries climbed, led by longer-dated notes, following a solid $44 billion sale. Oil held gains early Wednesday after President Donald Trump's reiteration that further levies on Russia remained on the table without a Ukraine truce.

Federal agency sued for failing to enforce employment protections for transgender workers
Federal agency sued for failing to enforce employment protections for transgender workers

The Hill

time27 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Federal agency sued for failing to enforce employment protections for transgender workers

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency responsible for enforcing laws against workplace discrimination, has refused since January to fully enforce employment protections for transgender workers, two left-leaning legal organizations argue in a new lawsuit. A complaint filed Tuesday by Democracy Forward and the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) on behalf of FreeState Justice, a Maryland nonprofit, alleges the EEOC and its acting chair, Andrea Lucas, are violating federal civil rights law, the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent by declining to process certain discrimination complaints raised by transgender workers. The EEOC first halted the charge-investigation process for charges tied to sexual orientation or gender identity in January, the lawsuit alleges, following an executive order from President Trump declaring that the U.S. recognizes only two unchangeable sexes, male and female. In April, the agency directed staff to classify charges of gender identity discrimination as meritless and put them on hold, the Associated Press reported at the time. In a July email to staff that was first reported by the Washington Post, Thomas Colclough, director of the EEOC's field operations, said the agency would only process cases that 'fall squarely' under the Supreme Court's 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that firing transgender workers because of their gender identity violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The agency would process standalone hiring, dismissal and promotion charges brought by transgender workers, Colclough wrote, but would not investigate other claims, including workplace harassment, that are tied to gender identity. Tuesday's lawsuit, filed in Maryland district court, refers to the agency's new policy as the 'Trans Exclusion Policy' and argues that it 'deprives transgender workers of the full set of charge-investigation and other enforcement protections that the EEOC provides to other workers.' 'Consider, for example, the transgender worker who files a charge of discrimination with the EEOC after a years-long barrage of on-the-job anti-trans insults and slurs, threats of sexual and lethal violence, and physical attacks,' the lawsuit says. 'Before the Trans Exclusion Policy, a charge alleging such facts would have led the EEOC to process and investigate the charge, which in turn might have yielded a finding by the EEOC that there was reasonable cause to believe the charging party had been subject to unlawful treatment.' 'Under the Trans Exclusion Policy, the EEOC would not investigate, issue a cause finding, attempt to settle, or take any other step to process the charge,' the lawsuit continues. 'All because the charging party is transgender.' An EEOC spokesperson directed The Hill's request for comment to the Justice Department, which did not immediately return an email seeking comment on the complaint. Gaylynn Burroughs, vice president for education and workplace justice at NWLC, said in a statement that the EEOC under Lucas's leadership is 'promoting discrimination.' 'Transgender workers deserve to be protected against harassment, and the EEOC is obligated to do so under law,' Burroughs said. 'But the Trump administration seems hellbent on bullying transgender people in every possible way and ensuring that they are pushed out of all forms of public life, including their workplaces, so we're taking the administration to court.' Lucas, who has served as an EEOC commissioner since 2020 and was named the agency's acting chair in January, had previously listed 'defending the biological and binary reality of sex and related rights' as one of her top priorities. During a Senate confirmation hearing in June, Lucas defended her decision to dismiss several of the EEOC's own cases filed on behalf of transgender workers, arguing the cases conflict with Trump's 'two sexes' order. 'Biology is not bigotry. Biological sex is real, and it matters,' Lucas said in January. 'Sex is binary (male and female) and immutable. It is not harassment to acknowledge these truths—or to use language like pronouns that flow from these realities, even repeatedly.' Lucas has also voiced opposition to the EEOC's anti-harassment guidelines, which state that gender identity discrimination is prohibited by Title VII and 'sex-based harassment includes harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity, including how that identity is expressed.' Lucas, who voted against the policy when the EEOC brought it to a vote last year, cannot unilaterally remove or modify it.

U.S.-China AI Competition In The Spotlight
U.S.-China AI Competition In The Spotlight

Forbes

time28 minutes ago

  • Forbes

U.S.-China AI Competition In The Spotlight

WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 23: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during the "Winning the AI Race" summit ... More hosted by All‑In Podcast and Hill & Valley Forum at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium on July 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump signed executive orders related to his Artificial Intelligence Action Plan during the event. (Photo by) Recently both the United States and China have announced national policies for promoting the development of artificial intelligence. The Trump Administration's U.S. AI Action Plan features a deregulatory approach to driving innovation and building an American AI infrastructure that can be exported overseas. The Chinese Government AI plan instead proposes a global consensus-building organization that would seek a balance between AI development and security. The competition between these 2 contrasting approaches may be expected to have major implications for the adoption of AI around the world, and, thus, for the future of the global economy. A consistent deregulatory emphasis might be a winning American strategy. America's AI Action Plan 'America's AI Action Plan,' released by the White House on July 23, 2025, states that 'America must have the most powerful AI systems in the world,' and 'must also lead the world in creative and transformative application of these systems. Achieving these goals requires the Federal government to create the conditions where private-sector-led innovation can flourish.' The Action Plan features 3 pillars: (1) accelerate AI innovation; (2) build American AI infrastructure; and (3) lead in international AI diplomacy and security. The first pillar merits particular attention. The AI Innovation pillar includes a variety of specific initiatives designed to support the rapid adoption of and application of AI by government, businesses, and workers. Reducing regulatory burdens is the key policy that underpins the overall Trump AI innovation strategy. Most significantly, 'all Federal agencies . . . identify, revise, or repeal regulations, rules, memoranda, administrative orders, guidance documents, policy statements, and interagency agreements that unnecessarily hinder AI development or deployment.' The clear aim is to eliminate excessive federal AI regulation, to the extent legally possible. Biden-era Federal Trade Commission enforcement actions that 'advance theories of liability that unduly burden AI innovation' are to be set aside. State AI regulation is actively discouraged, to the extent allowed by law. The AI plan also takes aim at state AI regulations that interfere with the Federal Communications Commission's ability to carry out its statutory responsibilities. Furthermore, the Plan seeks to discourage excessive state-level AI regulation by steering AI-related discretionary federal funding away from states whose 'regulatory regimes may hinder the effectiveness of that funding or award.' The AI Action Plan's deregulatory tilt reflects continued support for the U.S. policy of 'permissionless innovation,' which drove the development of the internet from its beginnings in the 1990s. Permissionless innovation means 'that anyone should be able to innovate without having to seek permission from a government or other authority.' That policy allowed the internet to grow freely without U.S. Government regulatory authorization and oversight placed over the firms that developed it. The direct result was unprecedented innovation and huge economic dividends generated by U.S. firms, benefiting the American and global economies. Permissionless innovation does not mean freedom from legal requirements that protect health, safety, and business on the merits. AI innovators, like the internet pioneers that came before them, remain fully subject to the full range of U.S. civil and criminal laws, including national security, antitrust, consumer rights, environmental protection, and civil rights, to name just a few. By reducing the expected weight of regulatory burdens, the AI Plan may be expected to incentivize additional investments in and the faster implementation of AI systems. In turn, these effects could stimulate American competition in AI-related sectors and speed innovation, providing economic growth dividends and benefits to American businesses and consumers. American international competitiveness in AI and AI-related markets would benefit. Nine separate proposals are aimed at creating a robust American AI Infrastructure. These include deregulatory streamlined permitting for AI-supported infrastructure, promoting an AI-supportive electric grid, developing a skilled workforce for AI infrastructure, and ensuring cybersecurity. This pillar emphasizes exporting American AI to allies and partners; strengthening AI-related export controls, national security protections, and risk assessments; and countering Chinese influence in international governance bodies. The Action Plan notes that international organizations that are proposing AI governance frameworks and development strategies too often have advocated for burdensome regulations, vague 'codes of conduct' that promote cultural agendas that do not align with American values, or have been influenced by Chinese companies attempting to shape standards for facial recognition and surveillance. In response, the Action Plan recommends 'leverage[ing] the U.S. position in international diplomatic and standard-setting bodies to vigorously advocate for international AI governance approaches that promote innovation, reflect American values, and counter authoritarian influence.' Chinese Government Global Plan for AI Chinese Premier Li Qiang proposed a global organization to oversee the development of AI in a July 26 speech, just 3 days after the release of the American AI Action Plan. According to the Chinese Government, Li 'call[ed] for the early formation of a global framework and rules that have broad consensus to guide the development and use of AI.' Li noted the need 'to strike a balance between development and security.' He added that China is willing 'to offer more Chinese solutions.' In particular, 'China stands ready to undertake joint technical research with other countries, and will be more open in sharing open-source technology and products.' China's support for a new global AI authority (though cloaked in 'consensus-building' language) stands in sharp contrast to the Trump Administration's deregulatory, competition-driven American AI model, which the U.S. would seek to promote through economic diplomacy focused on existing international bodies and friendly nations. The Big Competition The 2 recent government announcements provide a preview of the coming global competition between contrasting American and Chinese AI models. China and the U.S. are widely regarded as the 2 major global players in AI. China China is a formidable force in AI development. China's 2017 New Generation AI Development Plan revealed its intention to become the global leader in AI by 2030. China's Government has worked closely with its tech giants to make them AI leaders, and has encouraged the collection of data to build AI models. Chinese agencies and businesses have introduced AI at all levels. China has aggressively sought to have Chinese AI systems adopted in Asia, Africa, and South America. Moreover, with government support, Chinese firms are opening offices and entering partnerships in the Middle East, Europe, and the U.S. China is also investing heavily in AI education and in AI military applications. The U.S. The U.S. still leads 'leads the world in large-scale AI development, driven in part by its leading talent and innovation ecosystem, but also by its access to cutting-edge 'compute' – the specialized chips, data centers, and infrastructure needed to train and deploy the most capable AI systems.' The U.S. Government is not emulating China's heavy government control over AI development. The AI Action Plan's provisions dealing with labor and infrastructure reflect a 'light touch' approach. They primarily feature encouragement through easing burdens on the private sector, rather than detailed industrial policy directives. Most significantly, the AI Action Plan has an overarching deregulatory focus. It leaves it to entrepreneurs to produce new AI innovations, free from government micromanagement. The Bottom Line Competition on the merits among competing AI systems, like competition in general, should tend to benefit society. It can be a 'win' for economic welfare worldwide, yielding an optimal array of products and services. The extent of direct Chinese Government involvement in developing and promoting its vision of AI is, however, a complicating factor. The U.S. Government may be expected to resist Chinese policies that would generate anticompetitive market distortions in AI markets. A consistent U.S. Government approach of deregulation and 'permissionless invitation' just might be the 'secret sauce' needed to achieve global success for American AI, assuming geopolitical obstacles are surmounted.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store