In 1935, American political scientist E. E. Schattschneider astutely observed: “A new policy creates a new politics.” This insight from his book Politics, Pressures and the Tariff is equally apt today.
That first articulation of what would come to be known in political science as “policy feedback effects” was an early recognition that politics does not simply shape policymaking, but that policymaking also shapes politics.
President Donald Trump sweeping changes to American foreign and domestic policies, and his emphasis on personal loyalty over competence – regardless of how successful these are over the short and medium term – could alter long-term U.S. political culture so profoundly that it resists a return to normal, evidence-based governance after he leaves office.
What Trump’s second term highlights
Trump’s second term is undoubtedly both the product of, and the initiator of, American civil strife.
In the first weeks back in the White House, he signed more than 80 executive orders. That is not uncommon. Executive orders are a straightforward way for presidents to bypass Congress. President Joseph Biden signed more than 160 of them.
However, Trump’s recent orders that signal major changes include establishing a White House Faith Office, withdrawing some funding from United Nations relief projects and establishing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) with Elon Musk as the lead “special government employee.”
Furthermore, Trump has reportedly tasked his administration’s top officials with screening applicants for jobs in several government agencies, including the Pentagon, by asking their thoughts on the violent attack on the Capitol that Trump initiated on Jan. 6, 2021, to prevent the certification of Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election.
Political scientists Nancy Rosenblum and Russel Muirhead describe Trump’s overall approach as “ungoverning” – a process in which the state deliberately degrades its own administrative capacity in favour of personal loyalty to the president. They argue that this shift diminishes the value of expertise, reducing it to a dispensable resource.
Ungoverning “makes the strongman weak,” Rosenblum and Muirhead note.
Thus, Trump’s emphasis on personal loyalty will undermine his ability to govern effectively. Imposing one’s will is not the same as governing. As loyalty replaces expertise and obsequious followers multiply, a leader’s excesses are left increasingly unchecked.
The consequences of a new era
Not only will these sweeping changes diminish the state’s capacity to perform the everyday functions of government, they will also reshape the norms around future governance. This could happen in two ways.
First, it will reshape political culture as the U.S. pursues more isolationist “America First” policies both abroad and at home.
Trump has already threatened or initiated tariff wars with Canada, Mexico, China and the European Union. Other countries could be hit in April.
This economic pressure is compounded by Trump’s increasing antagonism toward Canada, driven by his desire for our natural resources, including critical minerals.
Repeated references to Canada as the “51st state” have rapidly reshaped Canadian political culture. The threat of annexation has fueled a surge in patriotism, with some Canadians even interpreting the 4 Nations Face-Off hockey tournament as a manifestation of “burgeoning U.S.- Canada geopolitical rivalry.”
In response to growing tensions, many Canadians are boycotting American products in favour of Canadian-made goods – a shift that is already affecting the retail market.
More strikingly, a recent poll found 51 per cent of those surveyed now view the U.S. as an “enemy” country or a “threat to national interests.”
As Winston Churchill warned: “To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the act of a single day.” Since it can take decades to repair diplomatic ties, Trump’s threats of annexation are already reshaping North American political culture for the long term.
In terms of Trump’s domestic policy, the new era of “America First” could lead to a fragmented federal bureaucracy, reshaping how governance is understood. By valuing personal loyalty to Trump and cost-cutting over the expertise needed for complex, beneficial outcomes, it will drive a shift in governance norms.
Second, it is possible that many of Trump’s new policies will be “sticky” – meaning difficult for a future administration to undo.
When sticky policies are designed, they can have “adhesion mechanisms” embedded that reinforce a specific trajectory. Scholars Andrew Jordan and Elah Matt have outlined that mechanisms such as monitoring and review systems, revision steps and relational contracts can all either enhance policy adaptability or make them “sticky” and resistant to change.
The danger in what the Trump administration is doing is that its policymaking in an era of weakened administrative capacity and growing deference to executive authority may lead to policies that become sticky or self-reinforcing.
Without procedural safeguards, built-in revision mechanisms or the necessary expertise to explore alternative designs, policies risk becoming entrenched.
In the absence of specialized knowledge, poor policy design becomes more likely as decisions are made without sufficient understanding of long-term consequences or potential adjustments. This rigidity makes future corrections difficult, even when evidence suggests the need for reform or when political priorities shift.
Changing course
While it may seem early to discuss the challenges facing the next administration, the ways in which Trump is reshaping U.S. politics are not merely future problems. Rather, they are unfolding in real time.
The reshaping of norms is happening every day, influencing governance long before any future transition of power. Decisions made now – from executive orders to bureaucratic restructuring – may have ripple effects that extend well beyond the current Trump second term, altering not just policy but the very framework of governance itself.
Beyond the inherent complexity of policy reform, changing course in four years could prove difficult. If new norms prioritize deference to executive authority over professional competence, future administrations may find themselves constrained not just by sticky policy legacies, but by an altered political culture.
Do you have something to say about the article you just read? Be part of the Policy Options discussion, and send in your own submission, or a letter to the editor.
