THE mythology surrounding Donald Trump and his governing circle is built on a seductive but dangerous premise: that disruption is inherently virtuous. That to break is to reform. That to defy expertise is to liberate governance from its own excesses. It is a narrative eagerly consumed by those disillusioned with elite capture of institutions. But in practice, what has emerged is not transformation — it is disarray masquerading as strategy.
The Trump team has not merely rejected political finesse; it has displayed a sustained incapacity for governance itself.
The Cult of Incompetence
There is a difference between challenging entrenched systems and being unable to understand them. The administration’s defenders frame its revolving door of appointees and unconventional selections as an assault on bureaucratic stagnation. In truth, it often reflected administrative illiteracy.
From economic portfolios to national security roles, several appointments revealed a startling unfamiliarity with the demands of governance. Policy was not refined — it was improvised. Briefings were not absorbed — they were bypassed. Decision-making became episodic, driven less by institutional processes than by impulse and ideological signalling.
Nowhere was this more dangerous than in the national security sphere. During periods of acute tension in West Asia, the absence of coherence was glaring. Crisis management devolved into reaction. Strategy was replaced by spectacle. In a region already combustible, such recklessness is not merely an internal failing — it is a global risk.
Governance by Demolition
The deeper problem lies not just in incompetence, but in intent. Many appointments appeared calibrated not to reform institutions, but to hollow them out. Departments were not strengthened; they were destabilised. Expertise was not challenged; it was sidelined.
This is not governance. It is a demolition.
The much-touted “Board of Peace” — an initiative that might have required diplomatic nuance and credibility — collapsed under the weight of its own conceptual shallowness. Traditional allies, particularly in Europe, responded with scepticism bordering on dismissal. They recognised what the administration refused to acknowledge: diplomacy is not theatre. It cannot be conjured through slogans or unilateral declarations. It is built painstakingly, through trust, continuity, and respect for process — qualities glaringly absent in this experiment.
Iran and the Theatre of ‘Maximum Pressure’
If there is one arena where the bankruptcy of this approach stands exposed, it is Iran.
The so-called “maximum pressure” strategy — sanctions layered with sporadic military signalling — was marketed as decisive statecraft. In reality, it has been a study in strategic failure. By early 2026, it had neither delivered a new nuclear agreement nor compelled meaningful concessions from Tehran. Instead, it has achieved the opposite.
Iran has adapted. Its regional networks remain active. Its allies continue to challenge US interests across West Asia. The region itself has grown more volatile, not less. What was sold as pressure has become provocation without purpose. Sanctions, while devastating to ordinary Iranians, have not translated into political capitulation. Limited military actions have signalled aggression without resolve. The result is a dangerous equilibrium — one sustained not by stability, but by the absence of a coherent alternative.
This is not a strategy. It is a drift with consequences.
Imperial Arrogance
To understand the present, one must situate it within the longer arc of American interventionism. The Trump doctrine is not an aberration — it is an intensification.
From the devastation of Iraq following the 2003 invasion, to the protracted destruction of the Gaza Strip under Israeli assault backed by Washington, the Global South has long been the testing ground for policies crafted in distant corridors of power.
What distinguishes the current moment is not the existence of coercive policy, but its brazenness.
Where previous administrations cloaked intervention in the language of democracy and human rights, the Trump team strips away even that veneer. Power is asserted nakedly — through sanctions that punish populations, through military posturing that escalates tensions, and through diplomatic disengagement that abandons even the pretence of multilateralism. The victims, as always, are not policymakers but people.
In Iraq, it was civilians who bore the cost of “shock and awe.” In Gaza, it is an entire population subjected to siege, bombardment, and deprivation. In Iran, it is ordinary citizens who endure the crushing weight of economic sanctions while political elites remain entrenched. This is the moral paradox of American foreign policy: it claims to target regimes, but it devastates societies.
Selective Sovereignty
The Global South has learned, often painfully, that sovereignty under the current international order is conditional. Some nations are permitted to assert it; others are punished for attempting to do so.
Iran’s defiance is framed as aggression. Yet nuclear ambiguity in allied states passes without consequence. Resistance movements are labelled as terrorism when they challenge US-aligned powers, but celebrated as freedom struggles when they serve strategic interests. This double standard is not lost on the world.
It erodes the legitimacy of international law, turning it into an instrument of convenience rather than a framework of justice. It exposes a system where rules are enforced selectively, and where power determines principle. Under the Trump administration, this hypocrisy is no longer subtle—it is policy.
The Erosion of Credibility
Perhaps the most enduring damage lies in the erosion of credibility. Governance under the Trump team has been marked by inconsistency so profound that it has blurred the line between unpredictability and incoherence.
Allies have been left guessing. Commitments appear conditional, subject to abrupt reversal. Adversaries, far from being deterred, have grown emboldened, testing the limits of an administration that appears reactive rather than resolute. The defenders of this approach often invoke unpredictability as a tactical advantage. But unpredictability without strategic grounding is not cunning – it is confusion. It signals not strength, but instability.
In international relations, credibility is not a luxury; it is the foundation of influence. Once squandered, it cannot be reclaimed through rhetoric.
As of late March and early April, President Donald Trump’s approval ratings have entered deeply negative territory, reaching their lowest points of his second term, primarily driven by the controversial war in Iran, rising fuel prices, and severe public dissatisfaction with economic management, including inflation and tariffs. In late March, Trump’s net approval rating plunged to approximately minus 18 points to minus 20 points (e.g., 36% approval vs. 56% disapproval), marking a new, lower low for his second term.
Polling indicates a “five-alarm fire” regarding his handling of key issues, with net approval on inflation reaching a severe -47 points. Voters are reporting high anxiety over a “surging” cost of living and, as of late March, a “war in Iran,” which has contributed to eroding support even in traditionally strong Republican areas.
Recent polls indicate that 62% of Americans disapprove of his job performance, with high disapproval numbers regarding his economic and foreign policy decisions. These figures are placing significant pressure on his administration as they approach midterm elections, with some analysts noting the numbers could endanger Republican majorities in Congress.
Power Without Intelligence
At its core, the Trump doctrine represents a profound misunderstanding of power itself. Power is not merely the ability to coerce — it is the capacity to persuade, to build alliances, to anticipate consequences. What we are witnessing instead is power stripped of intelligence. Decisions are made without depth, policies pursued without foresight, and consequences absorbed without accountability.
The consequences are not theoretical. They are visible in a Middle East teetering on the edge, in alliances fraying under strain, and in a global order increasingly sceptical of American leadership.
A World Less Willing to Comply
There is, however, a shift underway. The Global South is no longer as pliant as it once was.
From Latin America to Africa to Asia, there is a growing resistance to unilateral coercion. Regional alliances are strengthening. Alternative economic frameworks are emerging. Even long-standing partners are beginning to hedge, seeking autonomy in a world where US leadership appears increasingly erratic. This is not merely a reaction to one administration. It is the cumulative response to decades of overreach — of which the Trump doctrine is simply the most unvarnished expression.
A Reckoning Deferred
There is a temptation, particularly among supporters, to interpret this moment as a necessary rupture—a painful but essential break from the inertia of the past. But disruption, when untethered from purpose, does not lead to renewal. It leads to decay.
The Trump administration’s approach is not a bold reimagining of governance. It is a cautionary tale of what happens when instinct replaces intellect, and when ideology substitutes for strategy.
The world is not a stage for improvisation. It is a system of interlocking crises that demands competence, consistency, and clarity. To govern it otherwise is not merely ineffective—it is dangerous.
Disorder as Doctrine
History will not judge this experiment kindly. It will not remember it as a moment of courageous disruption, but as an era when power was exercised without discipline, and when governance was reduced to performance.
The tragedy is not only that this approach has failed to resolve conflicts like Iran—it is that it has deepened them, widened fault lines, and normalised a politics of impunity.
For the Global South, the lesson is stark: dependence on such power is perilous. Autonomy is not a choice — it is a necessity. In the end, disruption without direction is not reform. It is a ruin.
__________________
Ranjan Solomon is a writer, researcher and activist based in Goa. He has worked in social movements since he was 19 years of age. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them. He can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com
