One of the hardest parts of writing about politics these days is factoring in the inherently mercurial nature of President Donald Trump’s administration. Not only is Trump himself prone to wild swings of temperament, as with the whiplash over tariffs on Canada and Mexico, but throughout the executive branch, policies that are in place one day are being rescinded the next in this, the “whoops, just kidding” stage of Trump’s first 100 days.
Tuesday, the Office of Personnel Management, which functions as the federal government’s human resources department, backed away from a previous memo that ordered federal agencies to “promptly determine” whether probationary employees “should be retained at the agency.” Instead, the new guidance stresses that agency heads “have ultimate decision-making authority over, and responsibility for, such personnel actions.” Trump abruptly gathered his Cabinet on Thursday along with billionaire Elon Musk and told the assembled secretaries that they, and not Musk, have the power to hire and fire employees.
It’s important, then, to look at whether the administration’s actions are changing or just its reasoning.
The last two weeks have been rife with similar backtracking: The General Services Administration listed hundreds of government buildings for sale, only to quickly pull down the listings; a federal board cleared 5,000 Department of Agriculture employees to temporarily return to work after being let go; the government narrowed the scope of its proposal to use Guantánamo Bay to hold deported migrants; and the government decided against closing an office that monitors a critical nuclear waste storage site.
We saw a similar period at the start of Trump’s first term, when Trump eventually walked back a series of executive actions that met stiff resistance. The quintessential example is the “Muslim travel ban” issued in that administration’s first days. It was met with mass protest and eventually struck down in the Supreme Court. Trump backed down on his attempt to undo Obamacare, his initial attempt to overturn the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, and his threats to defund historically Black colleges and universities.
This term’s walk-backs from the Trump administration came faster than expected, given the interregnum and more loyal administrators with government experience. Even so, this isn’t the hoped-for “find out” phase that critics have been waiting for. When the first Trump administration hit legal walls with its Muslim ban, it kept trying until it had crafted an executive order narrow enough to meet its goals and pass Supreme Court muster. The administration likewise tried again to end DACA unilaterally and came close to adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census based on an entirely made-up reason. It’s important, then, to look at whether the administration’s actions are changing or just its reasoning.
The administration never says, “Oh, we shouldn’t do this,” only “How can we better get away with this?”
OPM’s announcement came after a federal judge ordered the agency to rescind the memo ordering mass firings. In the interim, thousands of probationary employees at various agencies, including longtime civil servants who had merely transferred jobs recently, were fired as part of the Department of Government Efficiency’s arbitrary crusade to shrink the size of the workforce. Meanwhile, the Defense Department and the CIA are reportedly still moving forward with planned cuts despite OPM’s pulling back its order. And, incredibly, Trump himself almost immediately reversed course on who’s calling the shots on the firings, saying that if the agencies “don’t cut, then Elon will do the cutting.”
It clearly remains the case that DOGE’s missives aren’t merely suggestions and that the overall goals of slashing the heart out of the federal government remain the same. It follows, then, that these periods of strategic retreat aren’t evidence of the Trump team’s changing its mind or even about fixing its previous errors. It’s about finding the most plausible and/or least malicious-sounding justification for continuing down the same path.
Because in essence, Trump’s actions are the equivalent of “Parks and Recreation” character Ron Swanson flashing a card that reads “I do what I want” at a ranger enforcing a park’s rules. The administration never says, “Oh, we shouldn’t do this,” only “How can we better get away with this?” Through it all, the MAGA strategy remains consistent; it’s only the tactics and public rationale that are changing.
As a result, we are seeing the administration play a shell game with the courts and media, forcing judges and reporters to keep their eyes on specific orders or expressed motivations. But in the end, the game remains fixed in favor of Trump’s getting the same outcome each time.
