Since entering office for his second term, Donald Trump’s second administration has been characterized by many as having a “move fast and break things” approach. Julie M. Norman and Thomas Gift write that while Trump has attempted to make foreign policy breakthroughs and to reform US domestic institutions, the policy results so far have ranged from underwhelming to spectacular failures. 

Love him or hate him, Trump is winning (often begrudging) admiration for seemingly getting things done in Washington. Maryland Governor Wes Moore recently told Democrats that “urgency is the instrument of change,” saying his side would be foolish not to learn from Trump’s impatience. Similarly, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz lamented that, in contrast to Trump, Democrats at best “incrementally change things” and increasingly fail to do the “big, bold stuff.”

After decades of political gridlock in Washington, it’s no wonder that some policymakers are envious of Trump’s apparent productivity. Among voters, as well, a record share of Americans want the government to get more done, reflecting increased support from Republicans and Independents for a more energetic government.

But an active government is different from an effective one, and Democrats, while often too beholden to process, should be cautious in envying Trump’s “move fast and break things” approach. It’s easier (and faster) to tear things down than to build them up, especially when making policy almost exclusively through executive orders that may or may not pass judicial review.

Foreign policy: apparent breakthroughs then little progress

This slapdash manner is perhaps most evident in the administration’s foreign policy. Trump came into office promising a new type of diplomacy. Though many were skeptical, some were curious whether Trump’s unorthodoxy could cut through the groupthink that often overtakes Washington’s foreign policy “blob.”

There were signs of possible breakthroughs. Even before the inauguration, Trump’s close advisor Steve Witkoff pushed through a Gaza ceasefire deal that had eluded the Biden administration for over a year. Three months later, the US (again represented by Witkoff) began seemingly good-faith nuclear talks with Iran. And, despite an alarming Oval Office spat between Trump and Ukrainian President Voldymyr Zelensky, at least some attempts were being made to break the stalemate between Russia and Ukraine.

“P20250604DT-0124” by The White House is United States government work.

And yet, by March, the Gaza ceasefire had broken down with no US pressure on Israel to negotiate the agreed upon “Phase 2” of ending the war. Instead, Trump spoke breezily about the US taking over Gaza to establish a “riviera” before turning his attention elsewhere. The absence of US engagement has given Israel the green-light to not only continue the war, but to enact a plan to re-occupy the Gaza Strip, which even the Biden administration had been quick to reject.

In Iran, talks are ongoing, but along the same general parameters that defined the original Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the “Iran nuclear deal”), negotiated by the Obama administration, which Trump tore up in his first term. And despite Trump’s campaign promise to end the war in Ukraine in a day, the conflict shows no signs of ceasing, with Trump comparing the adversaries to “two children fighting in a park” as he justified his decision to “let them fight for a while” before pulling them apart.

On tariffs, Trump’s approach has been, at best, erratic. His initial “formula” for imposing them (mocked for being riddled with a simple math error) lacked coherence. While the White House has raised valid concerns about some bilateral trade deals requiring renegotiation, Trump’s impulse to enact broad, across-the-board levies rather than pursuing targeted agreements has alienated key allies and created sharp gyrations in financial markets.

Domestic policy: attacks on aid and education with underwhelming results

At home, Trump has taken a similarly combative approach. DOGE has taken a chainsaw to institutions like USAID, gutting successful programs like the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS (PEPFAR). In a spectacular failure, Tesla and SpaceX CEO, Elon Musk, now on the outs with Trump, fired and then unfired 300 personnel at the National Nuclear Security Administration, America’s agency which is literally responsible for preventing nuclear proliferation.

The White House’s assaults on higher education have likewise satisfied a coterie of right-wing devotees who view Harvard and other elite universities as the progenitors of “wokeism” and other progressive ills. However, the concrete results have been underwhelming: lawsuits are piling up, as researchers face bruising cuts to federal grants and international students wonder if they’ll receive visas.

Trump may have a knack for pushing fast deals and disrupting the status quo, but that shouldn’t be confused with getting things done. When it comes to erecting rather than just tearing down, Trump is far less adept, lacking the patience and coalition-building needed to turn bold declarations into durable solutions.

• Subscribe to LSE USAPP’s email newsletter to receive a weekly article roundup. 
• 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.