Last week saw more rapid-fire activity by the Trump administration, leading to fury over remarks made by Vice President JD Vance abroad and deepening controversies over DOGE and the US Department of Justice. In this Q&A, Thomas Gift breaks down the top headlines.

What should we take from Vice President J.D. Vance’s high-profile speech in Munich on Friday?

The most conspicuous part of Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference on Friday is what he didn’t discuss: Trump’s talks with Russia about ending the war in Ukraine. Instead, Vance used the opportunity to accuse European leaders of expressing only superficial support for free speech and democratic dialogue. This is all more than a bit ironic given all that Trump has done to censor his political adversaries. Most recently, this includes shutting out the Associated Press from multiple events at the White House and Air Force One, rotating out left-leaning press outlets from their offices in the Pentagon, and disseminating lists of banned DEI “buzzwords” that can no longer be used in government documents. Whether Vance has a point or not about European leaders, it’s a case of throwing stones in glass houses.

Why do you think Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has made the US Agency for International Development its primary target?

DOGE hasn’t done much strategically, but one thing it has done right—politically at least—is go after a “soft target” in USAID. Most voters don’t realize that only about one percent of the federal budget goes toward global development. But they still think the US government spends too much on humanitarian projects overseas. The Trump administration knew that it was going to spark backlash from the left on USAID, and that’s exactly what happened. It puts Democrats in the position of defending development aid when all many Americans want to hear about is cheaper groceries. Democrats are ultimately going to have to pick their battles and decide which figurative hill they want to die on. If it’s USAID., they might end up on the losing end politically.

J.D. Vance (Vice President, United States of America) speaking at MSC 2025. Source: MSC/Conzelmann

Is the controversy surrounding D.O.G.E. more likely to hurt Republicans or Democrats?

DOGE’s zealous approach to cutting government spending poses potential pitfalls on both sides. Democrats risk appearing out of touch if they seem to suggest that there’s no wasteful spending in Washington. Given the sentiment of the country, no politician now wants to be on the side defending the status quo. At the same time, the risk for Trump is in dismantling government institutions that help real voters—including his own. Everyone wants to see the government work better. But there’s a smart way to pursue reform and a reckless way. Radical upheaval of government agencies isn’t very conservative. The objective should be to combat inefficiencies, but in a way that doesn’t uproot the lives of dedicated public servants and hurt government programs that provide real value.

How damaging was the Trump administration’s accidental firing of nuclear security personnel?

There’s nothing like firing and then un-firing some of the country’s most important national security workers to undermine the idea of competency and efficiency. You might have thought that the name—the National Nuclear Security Administration—would’ve been a tell that this team deals with critical nuclear weapons stockpiles. But apparently not. Regardless, it’s embarrassing for the White House. It’s also a microcosm for how DOGE. is going about slashing government programming. If Trump’s team couldn’t decipher what the NNSA does, it raises the question of what else it’s potentially cutting that’s important. That includes vital research at the National Institutes of Health, a program on civilian protection at the Pentagon, life-saving initiatives at USAID. The list goes on.

What are the political implications of the US Department of Justice pressuring the Southern District of New York to drop charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams?

Last autumn the Democratic Mayor of New York, Eric Adams, was charged with taking bribes and soliciting illegal campaign donations. Now, the allegation is of a blatant quid pro quo: that Adams has said he’d help the Department of Justice to tackle illegal immigration and violent crime in New York City—if the DOJ, in turn, drops the corruption charges against him. If true, that means that not only is the highest public official in New York City trying to strong-arm the DOJ, but that the DOJ is going along. The fact that Danielle Sassoon, the acting US attorney for the Southern District of New York, has resigned in protest is a striking rebuke of the DOJ. Sassoon is no fire-breathing “deep state” liberal. She’s a member of the conservative Federalist Society who clerked for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

• This interview is based on comments Thomas Gift made on CNN’s “Newsroom” on 16 February 2025. 
• Please read our comments policy before commenting.
• Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics. 
• Shortened URL for this post: https://wp.me/p3I2YF-eY3