The Honeymoon Won't Last
Why Trump's honeymoon is likely to be much shorter than most
It’s always a temptation to feel like the current state of facts or misery will continue unabated into the foreseeable future. This is a bias of our minds and souls; it’s difficult for us to envision how situations that seem bigger than us could ever come to an end. But history proves otherwise. Every storm, no matter how severe, eventually passes, even when it feels like it’s here to stay.
Today, Donald Trump’s continued popularity, his reckless cabinet picks, and his inflammatory rhetoric may seem insurmountable, as though they fall on apathetic or deaf ears. And perhaps, for now, they do. Yet, I am certain of one thing: every presidency has a honeymoon period, and this one will be no exception (and may end quickly).
For President Biden, that honeymoon period lasted until the disastrous pullout from Afghanistan. Even though he was setup by Trump to fail, his popularity plummeted in its aftermath and has struggled to recover since. Trump, too, will face crises—international or domestic—and when those moments come, the bubble of his current momentum will inevitably pop. What makes this moment unique, however, is Trump’s apparent belief that his popularity and goodwill are infinite. This hubris sets the stage for him to burn through it all much faster than most.
Take his cabinet picks, for example. While they might not initially register as earth-shattering to voters, their cumulative effect on the American psyche will be profound. They reveal a man less interested in governance and more fixated on settling scores and indulging in image-driven theatrics. Americans may tolerate this approach for a time, especially before Trump’s swearing-in, but that tolerance has a limit.
Let’s start with the Defense Department. Trump’s selection of Pete Hegseth, a Fox News personality with limited qualifications, signals a preference for loyalty and optics over expertise and leadership. The Pentagon oversees the safety and security of our nation; its leader must inspire trust, not controversy. Americans care deeply about our military, and Hegseth’s appointment raises questions about Trump’s seriousness in protecting national defense.
Then there’s the matter of public health. RFK Jr., a prominent vaccine skeptic, has been nominated as Health and Human Services secretary. On paper, this sounds like a thought experiment gone wrong. In practice, it could have devastating consequences. Imagine the public’s reaction to the first outbreak of a preventable disease like measles under his watch. Add to this the inevitable controversies stemming from his long history of unscientific claims, and the trust Americans place in public health institutions could unravel overnight.
The intelligence community is another critical area where Trump’s appointments raise alarm. Former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, with pro-Assad and pro-Russian sympathies, was selected to oversee intelligence coordination, and its quite troubling. Our allies depend on us—and we on them—for the exchange of vital information. What happens when those allies no longer feel secure sharing sensitive intelligence with a U.S. government led by officials whose loyalties appear compromised? The ramifications for global security and America’s standing in the world could be severe.
And let’s not forget the FBI. Kash Patel, a former staffer for Devin Nunes and now a purveyor of conspiracy theories on Steve Bannon’s podcast, has been named to lead this storied institution. The FBI has long been celebrated in American culture for its role in thwarting foreign espionage, terrorism, and domestic crime. Turning it into a political revenge tool would undermine decades of public trust and cripple its effectiveness.
Americans are patient, to a point. But patience has its limits. Trump’s inclination to prioritize loyalty over competence and revenge over responsibility risks pushing the public’s tolerance to the brink. His choices for leadership positions, while initially tolerated by some as political theater, will eventually be scrutinized for their real-world consequences. And those consequences will make it clear that his administration is not a serious effort to lead the nation but a spectacle designed to settle personal scores.
History has shown us that no leader is immune to accountability, no matter how insulated they may seem. Trump’s tenure will not defy this truth. The American people may be willing to give him a chance, but they will not hesitate to withdraw their support when it becomes evident that his administration poses a threat to democracy itself. Recklessness, in the end, is a self-defeating strategy. Trump appears determined to test how quickly he can squander the goodwill he has, and when he does, it will only serve to reinforce what so many already know: his leadership is a clear and present danger to the principles that hold this nation together.
