During Donald Trump’s first term as president, critics often asked, Can you imagine the outcry if the Democrats did this? As Trump begins his second term, the relevant question is Can you imagine the outcry if Trump had done this eight years ago?
Less than 24 hours after taking office as the new president, Trump has already taken a series of steps that if he had taken them on his first day, first week, or first year in office in 2017, would have caused widespread outrage and Massive demonstrations. Most shockingly, he pardoned these measures. There were more than 1,500 rioters on January 6, some of whom participated in violence. (Of course, who could have imagined at the time that a president would try to stay in power after defeat, or return to the White House after winning the next election?). Additionally, he has vowed to end birthright citizenship, withdraw from the World Health Organization, seek to convert most civil servants into sheltered jobs, and issue an executive order defining gender as a binary.
Although it's early days, these initiatives have gone largely unanswered, including from a bewildered left and press corps. It's a dramatic shift from eight years ago, when hundreds of thousands of demonstrators gathered in Washington and Americans flocked to airports at midnight to try to block Trump's travel ban.
The difference stems from three major factors. First, Trump worked hard to desensitize the public to his most outrageous statements. As I wrote a year ago, predicting how Trump's second term as president might unfold, people were shocked when he first said something. The second time, people noticed that Trump was causing trouble again. By the third time, it becomes background noise.
Second, Trump has realized the value of a shock strategy. By signing so many controversial executive orders at the same time, he has made it difficult for anyone to grasp the scale of the changes he has made, and he has divided a coalition of interests that might otherwise align against anything he does recently. One thing. Third, American society has changed. Not only are people no longer angry about what Trump does, they are less angry about what Trump does. The nearly decade-long Trump era has shifted some aspects of American culture to the far right.
Even Trump’s inaugural address yesterday demonstrated this pattern. His "American Carnage" speech four years ago left audiences bewildered. George W. Bush reportedly thought it was "weird shit," both earthy and accurate. His second inauguration seems only slightly less bleak — or have we all grown accustomed to this approach from the president?
One test of the issue is Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, which seeks to change the interpretation of a Constitution that has been in place for more than 150 years. In the order he signed yesterday, Trump said that now "the privileges of U.S. citizenship do not automatically extend to persons born in the United States." Lawyers are at the ready; the order is immediately challenged in court and may not stand. Regardless, the shift Trump is trying to effect will have a greater impact than his 2017 effort to ban certain foreign nationals from obtaining U.S. birthright citizenship, not just as a policy but as a theory of who is an American idea. But Trump has been threatening to do this for years, so it was no surprise when he followed through.
From another perspective, he is also trying to change What Be considered an American. Four years ago, the Jan. 6 riots nearly shocked the nation. As my colleagues Anne-Joy Williams and Gisela Salim-Pell noted, incoming United Nations Ambassador-designate Elise Stefanik called it “un-American”; Secretary of State Marco Rubio called it "anti-American." Yesterday, Republicans applauded Trump's release of rioters he called "hostages." That includes not just those who broke into the Capitol, but many who participated in the violence. Just this month, Vice President J.D. Vance declared, "If you committed an act of violence that day, obviously you should not be pardoned." Even Vance has become desensitized to Trump. (Heavy users can become numb to even strong narcotics.)
But as distance from the event grows and publicity intensifies, the share of Americans who say they disapprove of January 6 declines. Support for immigrants has also declined. Before the coronavirus pandemic, the WHO's withdrawal would likely have been more controversial; now, the failures of public health authorities and continued attacks on them by politicians, including Trump, have led many to believe the agencies need more than just Reform, and there is no need for it. It’s not just Silicon Valley giants who have acquiesced to Trump and adopted his ideas. While many remain opposed to the president's agenda, the 2024 election was the first time in three attempts that he won a majority of the popular vote.
In recent weeks, Trump has launched a confusing crusade against Panama’s ownership of the Panama Canal. He claimed (falsely) that the canal was under Chinese control and suggested that the United States should renege on the treaty that gave Panama control of the canal zone. Initially, this caused confusion. People were even more surprised when he refused to rule out military action (warning lecturers). Still, one can't tell whether Trump is fooling around or serious. And then he mentioned it again in his inaugural address yesterday. Will anyone frown when Trump sends out an expedition to seize the canal?