Today marks President Donald Trump’s 100th day in office. What to make of this dizzying first hundred days?
As our friend and former colleague Bret Stephens put it: “I’m hard-pressed to think of a more disastrous first 100 days of any presidency in American history. . . all of the wounds are self-inflicted.”
Even some of his most ardent supporters are struggling to understand and support his actions. As Rod Dreher wrote for The Free Press last week: “MAGA tempts the same sorry fate that conservatives like me suffered over Iraq. Do we hate our enemies more than we love liberty? More than we care about prudence and common sense? If the cost of victory is trashing the jobs and businesses of ordinary Americans with a reckless and unstable tariffs policy, abusing the Constitution, pointlessly sabotaging America’s allies, and replacing a domestic woke-left system with a woke-right one, MAGA risks destroying itself.”
On the other hand, there are people like Victor Davis Hanson, who see Trump as waging an existential counterrevolution: “He is waging a cultural, social, political, military, and economic shake-up to see if he can reboot the country. . . In other words, each day he is trying to stage a counterrevolution against the prior left-wing, neo-socialist, DEI, and green revolutions of the Obama-Biden years.”
Suffice it to say, the reaction to Trump’s policies has been a stark split screen.
Today, we have two Honestly favorites back to discuss these first 100 days: Free Press columnist Batya Ungar-Sargon, and Democratic strategist and Free Press contributor Brianna Wu. Bari asks them about Trump’s war on globalized trade, elite campuses, illegal immigration, plus the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.
We debate if Trump’s actions are what his base really wanted. And most importantly, Bari asks about the reach of his power, and the lengths he is willing to go.
First, I want to commend The FP for consistently delivering some of the most insightful work, thoughtful conversations, and spirited debates in journalism today. That said, I feel compelled to respond to this episode—something I’ve never done.
Batya’s commentary was so disconnected from reality that it bordered on absurdity and incoherent. She clearly lacks a fundamental understanding of how the economy functions, from supply chains, labor markets, and other key factors.
At this point, I’m genuinely asking: Is this just part of an act, or is she actually acting as a shill for the administration? Either way, it’s disheartening to see such unserious analysis in an otherwise thoughtful publication.
I opened the comments section to say a little something about how Batya refuses to see nuance or even give in just a little - like Brianna does so many times - that some of Trump's actions might pose a challenge for working class people. She made assumption after assumption that anyone who questions Trump's approach to tariffs and revitalizing U.S. manufacturing somehow finds "working with your hands" shameful. What??? (Also, an iphone as the key luxury item example?? Please. Even very poor people have smartphones. 79% of households with an annual income of less than $30K own them. https://www.consumeraffairs.com/cell_phones/how-many-americans-own-a-smartphone.html)
Alas, it looks like I'm not the only one who found her unwillingness to have a reasoned conversation about Trump absurd. I take comfort in the fact that I have a lot of company.