Trump’s Revival, Biden’s Reckoning
Contrasting mandates and the lessons they reveal about leadership and governance
The question of political mandates has rarely been as sharply contrasted as it is with the start of Donald Trump’s second term and the conclusion of Joe Biden’s presidency. Both men entered office claiming to represent the will of the people, but their approaches, priorities, and ultimate effectiveness diverged significantly. Trump’s return to the White House Monday has been defined by a bold, action-oriented agenda that reflects his promise to disrupt the status quo. In contrast, Biden’s term, now concluded, has been characterized as a missed opportunity to fulfill his central promise of unity and normalcy.
The comparison of their mandates offers key insights into the power of mission in governance — a theme we’ll explore further in Friday’s deep dive.
Mandates are, at their core, missions — clear directives shaped by public sentiment and political reality. Trump’s mandate appears straightforward: restore American economic dominance, control immigration, and reject progressive cultural shifts, all while challenging entrenched bureaucratic inefficiencies through initiatives like the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). His policies, however controversial, are aimed squarely at delivering on these promises. Meanwhile, Biden’s presidency began with an equally ambitious call for unity and a pledge to lead America out of the chaos of the Trump era. Yet his administration’s leftward pivot, coupled with challenges like inflation, immigration surges, and global crises, diluted his message and alienated many voters. These contrasting approaches highlight not only the impact of mandates but also their fragility when misaligned with public expectations or poor execution.
Today’s TL;dr begins with the launch of Trump 2.0, shifts to key excerpts from a compelling essay on how we arrived at this moment, and concludes by reflecting on the legacy of Biden 1.0.
The Inauguration and Day One
Donald Trump’s second inauguration showcased his signature mix of populism, provocation, and policy ambition. His speech rejected traditional unifying rhetoric in favor of rally-style declarations. Trump framed his re-election as a divine mandate for a national revival, linking his political comeback to America’s renewal.
That’s what he said. What did he do? A lot, actually. Whether some of the executive orders he signed actually stick remains to be seen, but Trump delivered on a promise to wield his pen mightily on Day One. Here are some of his actions, as reported by The Morning Dispatch and The Front Page, that demonstrate the administration’s attempts to deliver on its mandate.
Declaring a National Emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border. Unlocking federal funding for a border wall; reinstating the “Remain in Mexico” policy for asylum seekers; and designating drug cartels as “global terrorists.”
Declaring a National Energy Emergency. Cutting regulations around oil and gas production; reversing or de-funding Biden-era environmental policies; and ending what Trump termed “Biden’s electric vehicle mandate.”
Establishing an External Revenue Service: A new agency tasked with collecting tariffs.
Ending “Social Engineering” in Race and Gender Policies. A repudiation of gender ideology within federal government policy.
Freezing Most Federal Hiring. Requiring federal employees to return to in-person work.
A final note on the inauguration, from a commenter at The Morning Dispatch, which asked readers: Did you watch Donald Trump’s swearing-in ceremony? What did you make of his second inaugural address? Answered one:
I did watch the inauguration address. My emotional disconnection from federal politics in the wake of Trump’s election had me mostly saying ‘Huh, fascinating’ as I watched the speech. I spent much of this morning reading about a tax override in the town where I teach. If they don’t pass it, there will be significant teacher layoffs. Local politics is what really affects us.
Here at GGF, we couldn’t agree more!
The Birth of Pragmatic Populism
Let’s take a step back for context and big picture analysis. Just how in the hell did we get to Trump 2.0? It’s because political mandates/missions reflect real-world sentiment, says Martin Gurri, author of The Revolt of the Public as well as The Fifth Wave column in Discourse. Last month, Gurri articulated what’s changing in the political zeitgeist.
Analyzing the current political landscape, Gurri focuses on the failure of elite institutions to adapt to the digital age and the resulting public distrust. He critiques the Biden administration as emblematic of this failure, which has resulted in the resurgence of Trump, whose 2024 victory legitimized populism and shifted it toward action-oriented governance.
“There is a radical dissatisfaction with the social and political status quo across the democratic world,” Gurri writes. “The people in charge are distrusted and despised by the public: They are thought to be in business for themselves and indifferent to the concerns of ordinary people. From government agencies to the scientific establishment, the institutions that buttress modern society have been tainted by the corruption and poor performance of the ruling elites.”
That disgust and the long-held contempt of the federal bureaucracy provides Trump with a mandate to make fundamental changes, Gurri believes. Through the efforts of DOGE we are about to experience the birth of pragmatic populism.
“DOGE … was set up with Trump’s blessing and appeals to his populist inclinations—after all, it endows with programmatic reality his old promise to ‘drain the swamp.’ ... The crucial question is whether the system can be reformed. Evidently, Trump was elected to do just that. To the extent that he can persuade his voters that change is possible—that their revolt was a legitimate gesture, armed with a militant program—Trump can begin to restore the public’s trust in the institutions and the principles that sustain them, very much including democracy.”
If reading the words “Trump can begin to restore the public trust” makes you shake your head in wonder, Gurri explains why. “The world looks upside down,” he writes. “Not long ago, NFL players were taking the knee during the national anthem to protest the very existence of Trump. In 2024, they were doing the goofy Trump dance, golf swing and all.”
One last thought from Gurri, on the generational shift that’s makes real change possible. Many of Trump’s appointees, as well as his vice president, J.D. Vance, come from a younger generation and gives the revolution a fighting chance. Elon Musk, 53, is leading the DOGE effort. Other key players expected to join the administration are 40somethings Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, and Kash Patel to run the FBI. He writes:
There’s a human dimension to reform, too. It has long been apparent that our current elite class must be replaced by people who feel at home in the twenty-first century. By recent standards, including that of his first-term cabinet, Trump’s new advisers and appointees are relatively youthful … Besides enjoying the full vigor of life, members of this crowd have few memories of Vietnam, Watergate, or even Monica Lewinsky. Their eyes are fixed on the present and the future—beyond the digital culture that so distresses our decrepit elites to the next tidal waves of disruption, such as artificial intelligence and blockchain technology.
Of course, the odds are stacked against them. Failure is more likely than not. But it would be the crowning irony of Trump’s improbable trajectory if the motley collection of pirates and adventurers presently around him turn out to be the next American ruling class.
Biden’s Mandate: Ambition Meets Harsh Reality
Four years ago, Joe Biden had a mandate, too, lest we forget. It’s fair to say he was unable to get re-elected because he failed to deliver on it. Here’s a balanced summary of his administration based on reports by The Dispatch and The Free Press.
Biden entered office promising unity, moderation, and a return to normalcy after the turbulence of the Trump presidency. Initially, his administration achieved significant accomplishments, including a successful vaccine rollout, a bipartisan infrastructure deal, and the CHIPS Act. However, his presidency veered leftward, pursuing progressive policies like the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act, which contributed to inflation and alienated moderate voters. Immigration surged to historic levels under loosened policies, and crime increased, further eroding public trust. Despite some foreign policy successes, such as revitalizing NATO and supporting Ukraine, Biden faced criticism for the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal and perceived indecisiveness on global crises. By the end of his term, Biden’s pivot to progressive priorities, coupled with lingering economic and social challenges, left him unpopular and seen as out of step with many voters.
Let’s turn to a couple of sharp critiques of Biden’s term — not out of any delight in his departure, but because they highlight the consequences of not just straying from your mission but actively working against it.
The Quiet Lawlessness of Joe Biden. Former Justice Department spokesperson and journalist/podcaster Sarah Isgur argues that Joe Biden’s presidency, far from restoring norms and defending democracy as promised, quietly inflicted significant damage on the rule of law. She critiques Biden for actions such as disregarding Supreme Court rulings on student loan forgiveness and eviction moratoriums, manipulating social media platforms to suppress dissent, and pressuring institutions like the Justice Department for political ends. Biden’s progressive agenda, she claims, often bypassed constitutional limits, including attempts to reinterpret the Equal Rights Amendment and ignoring the TikTok ban he signed. Isgur contends Biden’s decisions to pardon his son Hunter and his handling of his declining mental acuity further undermined trust in democratic institutions. While contrasting Biden’s quieter methods with Trump’s overt defiance, Isgur concludes Biden’s presidency will be remembered for its subtle but significant erosion of the rule of law.
Goodbye to Joe Biden, and Whoever Was President the Last Four Years. Voters were looking for normal in 2020, and Joe Biden promised to be just that. Investigative journalist Matt Taibbi writes there was nothing normal about the cover-up of the former president’s declining mental state, which he notes began in Biden’s run for office in 2020.
It’s one thing to prop up a corpse for a presidential campaign, really a big commercial. It’s especially simplified when you can shoot the whole general election run from a basement studio. But a president makes policy decisions every minute, staffs huge bureaucracies, signs piles of documents, travels on Air Force One, receives heads of state, assassinates, undermines, terrifies, reassures. Or at least, he or she should be able to appear to do these things. It’s a much more elaborate illusion. That Biden’s handlers were able to convince most of the world to buy it for nearly four years is incredible.
In the name of fairness, I’ll give the Biden administration the last word on its accomplishments. Actually, it’s the last 26,000 words which had been compiled by his staff and listed here. Oops. I swear that link worked three days ago! That decidedly thorough list is gone from the White House website. So, chalk up one more task completed by the Trump Administration! The National Archives has much more accessible compilation of the Biden administration record here.
We’ll have more of the usual TL;dr staples, like GovOvertime: Hits & Misses, and Chart of the Week, in Friday’s newsletter.
Onward and Upward.
Well written observations. Will.