Diao Daming's Analysis of Trump's Radical Domestic and Foreign Agenda

I need to apologize again for refocusing on US politics instead of Chinese affairs (perhaps I should rename this newsletter), but I think Professor Diao’s latest piece is worth sharing.

For today's episode, I'm featuring Professor Diao Daming's comprehensive examination of Trump's second-term agenda. Diao serves as Professor at the School of International Studies and Deputy Director of the American Studies Center at Renmin University, making him one of China's leading experts on US politics.

In this piece, he categorizes Trump's policies into "realistic" and "unrealistic" radical agendas. His analysis reveals the method behind what many perceive as madness, particularly Trump's negotiation tactics of using extreme pressure as leverage for more modest gains, and his systematic exploitation of legal gaps and institutional weaknesses.

What makes this analysis especially valuable is the window it provides into Chinese strategic thinking. By understanding how China's academic and policy circles perceive Trump's negotiation style and decision-making patterns, we gain crucial insights into Beijing's evolving response strategy, from fighting back at the “liberation day“ to the recent pragmatic negotiations on rare earth materials. This perspective helps explain the rationale behind China's tactical shifts in dealing with the Trump administration.

Professor Diao Daming / Source: Renmin Uni, Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies

---

Analysis of Trump's Radical Domestic and Foreign Agenda in a Second Term

On April 30, 2025, President Donald J. Trump completed the first hundred days of his second term. During this period, Trump has unleashed a barrage of radical policy initiatives on both domestic and international fronts that have left observers bewildered, shocked, and at times incredulous. On his inauguration day alone, Trump signed a record-breaking 26 executive orders, not only reversing numerous key Biden administration policies but also establishing the so-called "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE), designed to slash federal government size, spending, and programs. Confronted with his bewildering array of domestic and foreign policy moves, observers naturally raise fundamental questions: How do Trump's radical agendas differ from those of his first term? What defining characteristics do they exhibit? How has Trump managed to advance such extreme policies? What impact might these actions have, and what lies ahead? Drawing on a preliminary analysis of Trump's radical domestic and foreign agendas in his second term, this article seeks to address these pressing questions.

I. Trump's Radical Agendas and Their Defining Features

Trump's current radical initiatives in domestic and foreign affairs not only depart dramatically from the conventional approaches of previous American presidents but actually exceed even his first-term efforts. By "radical agenda," we mean policy initiatives that fundamentally diverge from conventional thinking and standard practice. Their radical nature manifests primarily in two dimensions: the means employed and the objectives pursued.

These two dimensions yield two distinct categories of radical agendas. The first category pursues rational, achievable goals—objectives that have been accomplished before and proven attainable—but employs either conventional means pushed to their absolute limits or outright extreme measures. The second proposes unprecedented, unproven, and potentially unattainable objectives, with implementation methods that remain deliberately vague while not ruling out extreme measures. Put differently, the former represents "pragmatic radical agendas" that employ unconventional, extreme means to achieve conventional, realistic goals—such as withdrawing from international organizations, imposing targeted tariffs on specific trading partners or products, and suspending foreign aid. The latter constitutes "utopian radical agendas" that deploy all available means, including extreme ones, to pursue unrealistic, irrational objectives never before achieved—such as eliminating birthright citizenship, forcing federal employees to resign without legislation, suspending USAID without Congressional approval, dismantling the Department of Education through executive fiat, annexing Canada, demanding Panama "return" canal management rights, purchasing Greenland, occupying Gaza, and implementing comprehensive "reciprocal tariffs."

Viewed through this lens, Trump's first term primarily advanced pragmatic radical agendas, accompanied by occasional utopian initiatives. By contrast, while his second term still features pragmatic radical measures like tariffs and treaty withdrawals, it has introduced a far greater number of utopian radical agendas. This shift explains why Trump's second term strikes observers as markedly more unpredictable and potentially revolutionary. Nevertheless, despite the evident rise in unrealistic or irrational elements, Trump's domestic and foreign radical agendas—including the utopian ones—share several defining characteristics.

(1) Exploiting Legal Ambiguities and Institutional Gaps. Trump's radical agendas systematically exploit gaps and ambiguities in legal frameworks and institutional structures, carefully avoiding direct confrontation with explicit provisions of American or international law to evade immediate sanctions, thereby manufacturing a veneer of temporary "legitimacy." Domestically, his assault on birthright citizenship claims to offer a "corrective interpretation" of the Fourteenth Amendment, purporting to defend the "true" meaning of American citizenship. On immigration enforcement, Trump has expanded executive authority by positioning himself as a "crisis president" defending "national security" against alleged "foreign invasion," even authorizing military support for immigration operations. When targeting federal agencies, personnel, and programs that fall under Congressional jurisdiction, Trump has devised creative workarounds. For instance, he nominated Secretary of State Marco Rubio to simultaneously serve as Acting USAID Administrator, effectively achieving the merger of USAID into State—a reorganization that would normally require Congressional approval. Similarly, Trump arranged for Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and OMB Director Russell Vought to successively serve as acting heads of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, another target for elimination. Meanwhile, Trump and his DOGE advance their agenda through executive action: issuing "fork in the road" ultimatums to federal employees, offering buyouts within specified timeframes, while specifically targeting nearly 200,000 recent hires still in probationary periods for termination—tactics designed to minimize legal challenges and sanctions.

Internationally, while Trump has announced or threatened withdrawal from various international organizations, the U.S. continues to follow prescribed withdrawal procedures and timelines. Regarding territorial claims, jurisdictional rights, or resource control over other nations, Trump's proposals—though appearing to violate sovereignty and territorial integrity—emphasize "peaceful" methods requiring the "consent" of affected nations, such as "purchase" or "transfer," while maintaining studied ambiguity about the potential use of force. Trump's deliberately vague and contradictory statements about military options dance along the edges of international law, helping him avoid becoming a pariah in the international community.

(2) Securing Core Support While Neutralizing Key Opposition. The fundamental principle underlying Trump's radical agendas is to maintain support from—or at least avoid opposition by—his critical domestic constituencies. His restrictions on birthright citizenship and immigration reflect the aesthetic preferences of the MAGA movement within the Republican Party while satisfying long-standing conservative demands. Cuts to federal agencies, personnel, and programs not only align with conservative "small government" ideology but may even appeal to some Democrats, while tapping into Americans' deep-seated distrust of federal bureaucracy. Internationally, reducing global commitments fulfills MAGA's established agenda; targeted tariffs directly respond to affected domestic industries and blue-collar constituencies; expanding American geographical influence satisfies conservative political aspirations and certain industrial interests seeking new markets.

Opposition to these radical agendas primarily emanates from Democratic ranks and directly affected government employees. The former oppose reflexively due to partisan polarization; the latter, despite their grievances, lack the political capital and organizational strength to mount effective resistance. While civil society has mobilized—witness the April 5 nationwide protests against Trump and Elon Musk—this hasn't necessarily eroded Trump's core support. Mid-April 2025 polling, nearly three months into his term, shows Trump maintaining 44% approval against 53% disapproval—slightly better than his first-term numbers (41% and 53%). Other surveys indicate the percentage of Americans believing the country is heading in the right direction rose from 33% to 42%, while wrong-track sentiment fell from 67% to 58%. These numbers suggest Trump's radical agendas haven't yet generated unmanageable political backlash.

The "reciprocal tariffs" initiative—a utopian radical agenda—deserves special mention for triggering market volatility and shifting domestic opinion. Polling conducted April 3-7, 2025, immediately following the announcement, found 72% believing it would hurt the economy short-term versus 22% expecting benefits, while 53% anticipated long-term harm against 41% expecting gains. Among Republicans, short-term benefit/harm split 46%/44%, while long-term benefit/harm showed 87%/10%. Another April 4-6 poll found 39% support versus 57% opposition overall, but 73% support versus 24% opposition among Republicans. While these numbers confirm continued Republican loyalty, warning signs are emerging. Combined with market turbulence and donor pressure, Trump quickly announced modifications—90-day delays for most countries and exemptions for electronics—attempting to shore up support and minimize opposition.

(3) Hidden Agendas Behind Public Pronouncements. Trump's radical agendas often pursue objectives quite different from those publicly proclaimed, frequently exhibiting gradualist or transactional characteristics. As the ancient wisdom counsels, "judge by deeds, not words"(听其言，观其行)—Trump's publicly declared policy goals may mask his true intentions. His negotiating style favors "starting from outrageous positions before pivoting to bargaining and compromise." In Trump's own words: "I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I'm after. Sometimes I settle for less than I sought, but in most cases I still end up with what I want... You have to think anyway, so why not think big?... A little hyperbole never hurts." Often when launching radical initiatives, Trump may not have fully evaluated end goals, instead proceeding experimentally: "I never get too attached to one deal or one approach... I keep a lot of balls in the air, because most deals fall out, no matter how promising they seem at first."

Trump's policies likely serve two primary purposes. First, certain radical agendas, once implemented, produce irreversible, cumulative effects. Trump seeks to maximize their duration and scope while delaying corrective mechanisms, enabling gradual transformation through accumulated incremental changes. Second, for utopian radical agendas, Trump likely recognizes their unrealistic nature but employs them strategically—creating unprecedented pressure to force adversaries to accept "second-worst" outcomes to avoid "worst-case" scenarios, thereby securing transactional objectives with minimal American investment and maximum return. Whether gradualist or transactional, these represent "low-hanging fruit" that Trump's disruption makes available for harvest at minimal cost.

(4) Targeting Domestic Flashpoints While Mobilizing External Forces. Trump's domestic radical agendas strategically target controversial flashpoints to generate cascading "chilling effects." Birthright citizenship, for instance, has long been a lightning rod in immigration debates. It represents both the demographic transformation that MAGA supporters decry and an issue where partisan positions are firmly entrenched, ensuring Trump solid base support. Similarly, targeting USAID serves multiple symbolic purposes: it epitomizes the excessive foreign commitments MAGA opposes; it suffers from persistent negative public perception (polls show 60% of Americans believe the government spends too little domestically and too much on foreign aid, while grossly overestimating actual aid amounts); and it lacks powerful domestic constituencies, making it vulnerable to partisan attack without significant backlash.

Creating DOGE represents Trump's masterstroke in mobilizing external forces against internal resistance. By recruiting tech industry disruptors to challenge government orthodoxy, Trump frames his assault on the federal bureaucracy as modernization through corporate efficiency, big data, and artificial intelligence. In essence, DOGE and similar initiatives represent Trump's counter-establishment creating its own "deep state" to combat the traditional one.

(5) Bilateral Engagement with Multi-Issue Linkage. Consistent with his first term, Trump's foreign radical agendas—though involving multiple countries and issues—create bilateral arenas for complex, multi-issue transactions. This approach ensures America always negotiates from a position of overwhelming strength while linking disparate issues—both international and domestic—to maximize leverage. Trump weaves together genuine long-standing problems with artificially manufactured crises to create dense webs of interconnected negotiations.

Consider Mexico: while tariffs appear to be the primary tool, they actually serve as leverage for comprehensive negotiations encompassing trade, immigration, drugs, and the USMCA agreement. With Europe, Trump's transactional scope spans the Ukraine crisis, Ukrainian resources, trade relations, Greenland acquisition, and Europe's future defense obligations. The "reciprocal tariffs" initiative itself functions as pre-positioning for future negotiations, creating pressure and bargaining chips.

II. The Domestic and International Drivers of Trump's Radical Agendas

Trump's radical initiatives stem from complex domestic and international factors. Objectively, America's domestic power configuration and international position provide both foundation and operational space, even enabling the erosion of traditional checks and balances. Subjectively, Trump's second-term characteristics amplify his existing tendencies, driving him toward increasingly extreme positions.

(1) The Relentless Expansion of Presidential Power. American presidential power has experienced near-continuous expansion since the founding. The Constitution's framers, fearing monarchical tyranny, meticulously enumerated Congressional powers in Article I while granting only general "executive power" to the president in Article II. Historical evolution has inverted this balance: Congress remains confined by increasingly obsolete enumerated powers while presidents continuously redefine executive authority. This constitutional architecture naturally advantages presidential aggrandizement, while national development and America's global role create urgent demands for centralized, responsive leadership, spawning the "imperial presidency."

Crisis particularly accelerates this dynamic—Lincoln during the Civil War, FDR confronting Depression and world war, Nixon amid Vietnam, Reagan during Cold War tensions. Post-9/11, the "unitary executive theory" further empowered both Bush and Obama. Every president tests power's boundaries; absent Congressional or public pushback, imperial prerogatives become normalized. Even facing institutional constraints, presidents invoke executive necessity to justify expansive interpretations of executive orders, emergency powers, pardons, and privilege. While courts may eventually intervene, judicial review's retrospective nature allows policies to create irreversible facts on the ground. The case-by-case nature of judicial correction enables presidents to launch multiple initiatives faster than courts can respond.

In foreign affairs, presidential dominance is even more pronounced. While the Constitution grants specific foreign policy powers, presidential primacy evolved through practice and circumstance rather than constitutional mandate. Despite post-Vietnam constraints and increased Congressional assertiveness, presidents still dominate foreign policy implementation amid today's great power competition. Tariff authority exemplifies this evolution: though the Constitution assigns Congress taxation power, 20th-century legislation—the 1934 Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, 1962 Trade Expansion Act, 1974 Trade Act, 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act—progressively transferred trade authority to enhance negotiating efficiency and flexibility. Measures intended to streamline trade negotiations instead created fundamental imbalances, granting presidents near-monopolistic control over core economic policies.

(2) America's Continued Relative "Dominance" on the International Stage. Just as the American president is "dominant" in domestic and foreign power, America under presidential leadership also remains in a state of relative "dominance" on the international stage. In today's international power structure, whether the international community can provide necessary limitations and effective corrections to an America advancing extreme agendas is a challenge and test. Although the world order continues to undergo massive changes and America's national strength and international status have relatively declined, compared to other countries, it still retains the relative differential and comparative advantages of a unipolar state. The question may be less whether America can lead than whether it chooses to.

Trump has answered decisively, accelerating the dismantling of American leadership while maximizing pressure on all nations, including allies. International responses face inherent limitations: Western nations with deep economic ties struggle to sustain comprehensive resistance; major powers, prioritizing their own development and strategic stability, avoid escalatory responses; smaller nations, unable to coordinate collective action, cannot mount unified opposition. This constrained response environment emboldens Trump's continued boundary-testing.

(3) Trump's Particularity in His Second Term. Beyond structural factors, Trump himself exhibits distinctive second-term characteristics that maximize his exploitation of expanded presidential powers and American primacy. First, Trump has achieved unprecedented control over the Republican Party, transforming it ideologically and personnel-wise into a "Trumpified" vehicle incapable of meaningful resistance. Second, legacy concerns now dominate Trump's psychology, driving him toward "historic" achievements regardless of feasibility. Third, term limits eliminate electoral constraints, removing inhibitions against power expansion. Trump's constitutional contempt and disdain for tradition further facilitate radical departures. Fourth, Trump's foreign policy team has transformed from first-term "partners" to second-term "assistants."

The "taking over Gaza" episode illustrates this dynamic. On February 4, 2025, Trump spontaneously announced during Netanyahu's visit that America would "take over" Gaza—a proposal never discussed within his team, pure presidential improvisation reflecting Trump's unfiltered instincts now driving American foreign policy.

III. Impact and Prospects of Trump's Extreme Agendas

While Trump's evolving radical agendas defy comprehensive assessment, combining first-term experience with current developments enables cautious projections.

Domestically, Trump's radical initiatives create possibilities for gradual conservative policy victories. First, challenging birthright citizenship and similar divisive issues tests public opinion while initiating judicial processes. Though courts may halt these orders, they reveal latent support while launching legal battles that might yield Supreme Court victories. By mid-March 2025, three federal district courts had blocked Trump's birthright citizenship order, prompting direct Supreme Court appeal seeking breakthrough precedent.

Second, government downsizing initiatives may achieve "experimental" effects. Limited initial scope minimizes resistance, but as DOGE targets core departments and entrenched interests, judicial challenges will intensify. Complete circumvention of Congress seems impossible—even the conservative Roberts Court won't abandon separation of powers. Recognizing this, Trump pursues agency paralysis over elimination. By demonstrating that America functions without active Education Departments or USAIDs, Trump cultivates public acceptance of eventual abolition. This experimentalist approach—deeply rooted in American political culture—gradually shifts opinion, creating future windows for actual elimination.

Third, while DOGE's cutting potential is limited, any reductions achieved may prove sticky. Musk initially promised $1-2 trillion in cuts by America's 250th anniversary. DOGE claims $155 billion in cuts as of mid-April 2025, though these figures face skepticism. With FY2025's $7.27 trillion budget, only $1.88 trillion in discretionary spending offers adjustment potential after protecting entitlements and debt service. DOGE's claimed cuts represent just 8.2% of discretionary spending, suggesting ample remaining targets. However, military spending consumes 47% of discretionary funds, while remaining amounts sustain essential operations. Real cutting space is minimal and politically fraught. Yet any achieved reductions, once embedded in budget resolutions and appropriations, become difficult to reverse absent economic boom or revenue surge—fiscal inertia protecting Trump's changes.

Regarding foreign impact, Trump's radical agendas may partially achieve transactional effects. First, nations economically dependent on America will ultimately negotiate despite initial resistance. Though Trump likely won't use military force, allies and neighbors cannot withstand sustained economic pressure. Despite Trump's fickleness, overwhelming interest calculations drive repeated compromises.

Second, nations facing territorial or sovereignty challenges will make concrete concessions to avoid worst outcomes. While maintaining firm rhetorical positions, they'll engage in asymmetric negotiations, accepting Trump's realistic demands to forestall unrealistic ones. Even if Greenland remains Danish, expect maximized American practical control.

Third, designated strategic competitors view American confrontation as permanent reality. They'll defend legitimate interests through proportional responses while remaining open to mutually respectful dialogue yielding acceptable arrangements.

Fourth, tariffs may fundamentally restructure federal revenues, normalizing protectionism. Trump's first term saw customs revenues rise from $41.3 billion (FY2018) to $71 billion (FY2019), reaching $100 billion by FY2022. Inflation-adjusted, tariffs grew from 1% to a sustained 2% of federal revenues. Continued tariff escalation will further increase both absolute amounts and revenue share. With mounting deficits and debt, successor administrations may preserve these revenue streams rather than reduce tariffs, especially if economic impacts remain manageable.

Additionally, utopian radical agendas test team loyalty. The Gaza episode exemplifies this—despite Trump's subsequent equivocation, team members unanimously endorsed his spontaneous proposal, with Rubio actively promoting it during Middle East visits. Such episodes confirm team subservience to presidential whims.

While Trump's radical agendas generate various impacts, their long-term prospects appear more destructive than constructive. First, restricting birthright citizenship and mass deportations will intensify polarization and social fragmentation. Post-2024 defeat, Democrats face internal debates about abandoning identity politics for economic populism. Trump's white nationalist agenda may trap Democrats into continued identity-focused opposition, delaying political realignment.

Second, governing through DOGE is unsustainable. Disrupting federal operations undermines essential regulatory and service functions, risking public crises that generate backlash. Moreover, DOGE—ostensibly promoting rational efficiency through algorithmic governance—actually serves as Trump's anti-establishment weapon. When DOGE eventually threatens Trump's own interests, it too will be discarded.

Third, Trump's maximal exploitation of presidential power sets dangerous precedents. Future Democratic presidents may reciprocate with equally extreme measures, creating cycles of "competitive authoritarianism" that erode constitutional foundations and accelerate American decline.

Internationally, Trump's radical agendas accelerate American hegemonic adjustment while catalyzing global order transformation. Unlike his first term, Trump now emphasizes extracting maximum benefit from allies while shirking responsibilities. These accumulating grievances within the American-led system accelerate its dissolution. As Rubio acknowledged by discussing "return to multipolarity," Trump envisions America enjoying continued primacy benefits without corresponding obligations—a jungle favoring only American interests, antithetical to international community aspirations.

Moreover, Trump's second-term focus on the Western Hemisphere—pursuing territorial expansion reminiscent of late 19th-century regionalism—represents historical regression. That era saw America become the world's largest economy while maintaining high tariffs and expanding regionally without global responsibilities—the "imperial glory" Trump associates with William McKinley and "Making America Great Again." Trump's attempt to recreate this anachronistic vision by regressing world order 130 years cannot gain international acceptance.

IV. Conclusion

Trump's radical agendas reveal distinct second-term trajectories. Domestically, they represent "imperial presidency"-driven small government combining economic populism with cultural conservatism. Internationally, they manifest transactional unilateralism mixing Monroe Doctrine with Cold War thinking—contracting in intangible dimensions (leadership, institutions) while expanding in tangible ones (territory, resources).

These trajectories reflect Trump's evolved understanding. He now recognizes America's problems as primarily internal—"draining the swamp" takes precedence over external scapegoating. Simultaneously, acknowledging MAGA's ambitious timeline, he pursues gradual domestic transformation and transactional foreign gains, maximizing legacy creation.

Trump's radical agendas certainly promise transformative change. Yet historically, American transformations require existential crises—wars, depressions, or civil conflicts—that forge consensus from fragmented interests. Absent such catalysts, can Trump generate transformative momentum? More likely, Trump's radical agendas won't transform America—but resistance to them might. The real transformation may emerge not from Trump's disruptions but from the reflections they provoke about American democracy's future.