Analysis: With its shoot-first style, Trump team often shoots itself in the foot

CNN

a day ago

A telling moment early in President Donald Trump's second term foreshadowed how the administration is often now operating.
Appearing at a Cabinet meeting in late February, Elon Musk said the Department of Government Efficiency had 'accidentally canceled' Ebola prevention programs.
'We will make mistakes. We won't be perfect. But when we make a mistake, we'll fix it very quickly,' Musk said. 'So we restored the Ebola prevention immediately. And there was no interruption.'
It wasn't the first time Musk – who has since left the government – had acknowledged he and his team would make mistakes. But it was especially striking given the subject matter. Ebola prevention is literally a matter of life and death, but Musk mentioned it off-hand as if it were just some anecdote about DOGE's growing pains. (Musk's claim that there was 'no interruption' has also been called into question.)
In the months since, though, that attitude has become emblematic of the Trump administration's approach to the country's business.
Over and over again, it has employed shoot-first mentality with its public pronouncements and actions.
Sometimes, that has meant it shot itself in the foot. And sometimes it has wound up contradicting itself.
Four examples in recent days drive this home.
One of them involves Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Last week, Noem claimed on X that an undocumented immigrant had 'threatened to assassinate President Trump.' The Department of Homeland Security even put out a news release naming the man.
Except the claim quickly fell apart. CNN's Whitney Wild and Holmes Lybrand soon reported that authorities believed the immigrant had been set up – and that they had been investigating that possibility even before Noem's social media post. Now Wisconsin state prosecutors have charged another man, who they say admitted to orchestrating the ruse.
And a DHS official conceded Wednesday that the man whom Noem and DHS accused is no longer under investigation for the purported threat. (A judge earlier in the day had delayed immigration proceedings.)
Despite extensive coverage, neither Noem's post nor the DHS news release were removed or retracted as of Wednesday.
Another example Wednesday involved a Guatemalan national who says he was wrongfully deported to Mexico returning to the US, his legal team told CNN – in what appears to be the first instance of the administration bringing back a migrant as a result of a judge's order.
The situation stems from the administration's hasty deportation efforts, which have led to questions about whether the wrong people were deported. In at least three cases, judges have ruled that's exactly what happened, including two in which the migrants were sent to a brutal El Salvador prison. The administration has resisted returning the latter two migrants.
A third example involves a somewhat similar case to the Noem example. Interim US attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba last month announced charges against Newark Democratic Mayor Ras Baraka for his actions at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility.
Habba said Baraka had 'committed trespass' and 'has willingly chosen to disregard the law. That will not stand in this state. He has been taken into custody. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.'
But Habba later announced the charges against Baraka would be dropped 'for the sake of moving forward,' while announcing new charges against a Democratic congresswoman from the Garden State. A magistrate judge issued a strong rebuke, calling the original charge against Baraka a 'a worrisome misstep by your office' and suggested Habba might have been motivated by 'political agendas.'
'An arrest, particularly of a public figure, is not a preliminary investigative tool,' the judge said, calling it 'a severe action, carrying significant reputational and personal consequences.'
And Baraka, who's running in next week's gubernatorial primary, is now seizing on that alleged damage to his reputation. On Tuesday he filed suit against Habba, accusing her of false arrest, malicious prosecution and defamation.
The other recent example regards the Covid-19 vaccine.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. last week made a major announcement. He said – also on X – that 'the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from @CDCgov recommended immunization schedule.'
But just two days later, when the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its guidance, the vaccine was not, in fact, removed from the childhood schedule. It instead was listed under a slightly different designation – recommended based on 'shared clinical decision-making.' In other words, children would still be able to get the shot after consulting with a health care provider.
HHS claimed this was not a contradiction, and said on X that the vaccine 'is not recommended for healthy children.' But on the CDC's website, the vaccine is still coded as a 'Recommended vaccination based on shared clinical decision-making.'
These are only the most recent examples of statements and actions that have struggled with age:
The DOGE effort has involved laying off or firing lots of people, some of whom the administration then sought to rehire because they needed them, and some of whom courts have instructed the administration to keep or rehire because of legal questions.
Trump and a number of top administration officials last month leapt to accuse former FBI Director James Comey of threatening to assassinate Trump by posting an Instagram image of shells that spelled out '86 47.' Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said Comey should be jailed. Despite the rhetoric, there is little sign of impending charges against Comey. Comey said he doesn't expect to be charged. And even if Comey had been referring to assassination – which it's not at all clear he was – it's quite possible that speech was First Amendment-protected.
Trump has justified his rapid deportations of Venezuelan migrants by arguing that they are members of a gang, Tren de Aragua, that is acting 'directly and at the direction … of the [Nicolás] Maduro regime in Venezuela.' But The New York Times has reported that a US intelligence report undermined that claim. And plenty of reporting suggests the administration has worked to obscure that fact. (ODNI declined to comment to the Times.)
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed he didn't share 'war plans' while discussing strikes in Yemen on the unclassified Signal app with other top administration officials – right before The Atlantic published the texts showing detailed plans for the strikes.
The White House offered a lengthy series of conflicting signals about whether it viewed Trump's tariffs as a negotiating tool, before ultimately pushing for a bunch of deals.
So what does this all reveal?
Some of it is just a reflection of a president with a demonstrated disregard for the truth (see: 30,000-plus false and misleading statements in his first term) and rhetorical consistency. Under Trump's bare-knuckle brand of politics, you can say pretty much anything or level any wild accusation and then, when that doesn't pan out, you just move on to the next provocation.
It also seems to be a reflection of the kinds of people he's picked to lead the government. Many of these people don't have anywhere near the kinds of experience of those who usually hold their positions; among their chief qualifications was loyalty to Trump and willingness to do his bidding.
But also, these are people whose credibility matters, and their words have consequences.
Law enforcement generally isn't supposed to accuse people of things it doesn't intend to prove in court, because those people can be impugned by the mere allegations.
It's quite likely that people who would consider the Covid-19 vaccine for their children are confused by the conflicting signals from HHS.
Statements about tariff plans – and their staying power – have real-world impacts when it comes to long-term planning for American businesses. If you're a business, do you actually try to move manufacturing to the United States (assuming the tariffs will stay) or just wait things out (hoping they go away)?
And talking about massaging US intelligence to fit a political narrative is, as recent history makes clear, an extremely fraught enterprise.
But all indications are that this fast-and-loose style is going nowhere.