In the post World War II period, the United States has generally conducted itself as a rule-of-law democracy that has expanded political rights for all its citizens, welcomed large numbers of immigrants, and run an economy that has fostered innovation and entrepreneurship. In its foreign policy, it has built alliances and encouraged democratic reform and the expansion of trade. As is well-known, the second Trump Administration (which is the only Trump Administration I’ll be referring to in this post) is now taking the U.S. in a very different direction. Thomas Friedman’s column yesterday eloquently makes that point, especially in the area of trade policy.

Trump from an Innovation Perspective

The major focus of my research from 1990 to 2015 was on public sector innovation and the database I most frequently used was applications to the Harvard Kennedy School’s Innovations in American Government Awards. By innovation, I mean a government doing something it hasn’t done before within the limits of the law with beneficial consequences. If we think of the U.S. as a rule-of-law democracy as the status quo, then the Trump Administration innovations are intended to upend it.

Students of authoritarianism see the US as now following a playbook with which they are familiar. As an innovation scholar, however, I don’t assume that everything the Trump Administration is doing was done before and somewhere else. I’m interested in how Trump and his administration are exploiting recent technological and cultural affordances as well. And I recognize that flouting the law gives them great latitude. Here is a list of what I consider to be some of the innovations of the Trump Administration.

Digital Stormtroopers: DOGE consultants have used their access to the U.S. Government’s back-office systems to stop paying public servants, to fire public servants, to terminate contracts, and halt expenditures.

Termination without Cause: The Trump Administration has terminated numerous senior public servants, for example the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, without cause. They are being replaced with political appointees. This is setting a precedent to extend political appointments further down into the hierarchy.

Refusing to Spend Appropriated Funds: The Trump Administration has taken the position that it is not required to spend funds duly appropriated by Congress, and in many departments it is not.

Personal Insults: Trump has made insults about the policies, character, and physical appearance of other politicians and public figures a signature style ever since the Republican primary debates of 2016. And he has extended his insults to foreign leaders, recently calling Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “governor” and Minister Chrystia Freeland “totally toxic” and a “whack job.” These insults have been enabled by social media, which allows him to deliver them on his own whim to a global audience. Presumably these insults intimidate the target and excite Trump’s political base. Recently, some of his acolytes have started imitating him.

Those Trump has attacked have rarely responded in kind. One notable instance was Kamala Harris, in the presidential debate, ridiculing Trump’s capacity as a speaker and the size of his crowds, which infuriated Trump. Most observers concluded that Harris had won the debate, and this was one of the reasons.

Ritual Humiliation: Trump has developed a scenario for visiting leaders, culminating in a media availability in the Oval Office, with the visitor seated to Trump’s right and Trump’s attack-dogs (for example, Hegseth, Rubio, and Vance) on a sofa to his left. Guests will be subjected to outright attacks (Zelensky) or, even if considered friendly, have their asks rejected and have surprises sprung on them (Netanyahu). Why would any foreign leader want to meet Trump in so unfavourable and uncontrolled a setting?

Shifting Positions: Trump continually changes his position on issues. Again, social media provides him with a platform for announcing changes and his consideration of possible changes. His rationale is that uncertainty increases his power in any relationship.

Ignoring Treaties: Trump’s trade negotiations involve imposing tariffs that contravene existing treaties to which the US is a signatory, even those Trump signed previously, such as USMCA.

Unilateral Deals: Instead of remaining a party to multilateral trade agreements, which have been a hallmark of the post-World War II global economic order, the Trump Administration is trying to negotiate trade agreements with individual nations.

Threatening the Sovereignty of Allies: The Trump Administration has threatened the sovereignty of Panama, Greenland, and Canada. These are all departures from the international order that has been in place since World War II, but they do hearken back to the behaviour of imperial powers in previous centuries.

I could enumerate many other “innovations,” all equally malign, especially in areas such as immigration and relations with universities and the scientific and artistic communities, but nine is enough for one blog post.

I must conclude that President Trump and his Administration have been innovative because of their use of the affordances of modern technology and because of their disregard for both law and convention. This out-of-the-box thinking has put opponents on the defensive.

The big question is what these innovations are achieving. The courts may rule some innovations unconstitutional or illegal. The negative consequences of Trump’s actions (such as the effect of tariffs on prices) may lead to a loss of political power. Other nations are pushing back, for example by the coordinated dumping of long-term U.S. Government debt. Recognizing that it is easier to innovate when unconstrained by law, Trump’s opponents must undertake the harder task of fighting back, sometimes innovatively, while continuing to respect the law.