Trump's defenders are not persuasive

His approach is likely to damage democracy — and the very people who voted for him

- Ross Harvey

Like many, I have been trying to make sense of US President Donald Trump's first 100 days in office. Many others see this as a futile exercise. Either way you look at it, what has happened — and what might still happen — is consequential, not only for the US, but especially for the rest of the world.

For this reason, I was intrigued to see a “By Invitation” column in The Economist by Paul Dans. Dans is one of the architects behind Project 2025, which seems to be the underlying policy blueprint behind Trump’s demolition hammer.

The article begins with an overt defence of Trump’s actions. Succinctly, the argument is that the US was on a hiding to nothing when Trump entered office. National debt is at $36 trillion and “annual debt service exceeds the department of defence’s budget”. Moreover, the federal budget of $7 trillion for 2025 is 40% larger in real terms than a decade ago.

But the real concern for Dans seems to be the erosion of weapons stocks and the US’s industrial capacity for replenishment thereof, particularly because of the pushback against coal and nuclear power in the US, and the extensive supply of weapons to Ukraine. His point is that one cannot expect the US to be the global bastion of democracy if it cannot produce enough weapons to defend itself against an invasion.