Trump’s Second Term is a Masterclass in Inconsistency

As President Donald Trump’s second term is about to hit the wall of 100 days, one critique has grown louder: his inconsistency. Critics point to his sudden reversals, contradictory pronouncements, and policies that shift as quickly as his moods. In an age of social media and 24-hour news cycles, these whiplash decisions are magnified—and often amplified. The result is a presidency that feels deeply unmoored, erratic, and impulsive. But is Trump truly the most inconsistent president in modern history? Or is the chaos simply louder now?

History offers a few instructive parallels. And while no two presidents are the same, Trump’s volatility does echo the struggles of past leaders whose inconsistent or indecisive styles defined—and in some cases derailed—their presidencies.

Throughout his first term, Trump’s approach to policy could best be described as transactional. He pulled the United States out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, only to later suggest rejoining it. He simultaneously praised and criticized NATO. One day he was threatening to “totally destroy North Korea,” the next he was praising Kim Jong-un’s leadership. This pattern wasn’t limited to foreign policy. On COVID-19, he vacillated between downplaying its danger and declaring a national emergency—sometimes in the same week.

In his second term, the trend hasn’t changed. Trump has imposed massive and broad tariffs, only to lift them days later, reimpose them, lift, and so on. He has promised mass deportations while signaling support for undocumented workers in politically useful industries. His stance on tech regulation oscillates between government intervention and libertarian restraint. For critics, the result is confusion. For supporters, it’s “strategy”.

But while we find ourselves so deeply immersed, every single day, in all things Trump, it’s worth stepping back for a second and noting that this governing style is not without precedent.

Andrew Johnson, who ascended to the presidency after Lincoln’s assassination, was similarly unpredictable. Though he was a Democrat on a Republican ticket, many hoped Johnson could help reunite the country after the Civil War. Instead, his presidency devolved into a combative and contradictory mess. He opposed Reconstruction, vetoed civil rights legislation, and clashed violently with Congress—often simply because he could.

From my recollection of college history decades ago, Johnson’s inconsistencies were personal as much as they were political—just like Trump, especially Trump volume 2. To me, both men are deeply led by their own egos—even to the point where not putting your ego into some heart-shaped box will spell almost certain destruction.

Johnson’s refusal to build coalitions or stick to a coherent policy path led to paralysis—and impeachment. Though he survived removal by a single Senate vote, his presidency is widely considered a cautionary tale in leadership undone by personal volatility.

Another instructive comparison is Jimmy Carter. Where Johnson and Trump governed from their gut, Carter was a technocrat, often paralyzed by his own desire to do the right thing. But that didn’t translate into clarity. His foreign policy swung between a moral commitment to human rights and a pragmatic embrace of problematic allies. On energy, he made strong public pronouncements but failed to unify his party around a plan. And during the Iran hostage crisis, his inability to commit to a clear strategy left Americans with a sense that he had lost control.

I remember studying Carter in real time and being struck by his overarching decency. He seemed, at least to me, as someone beautifully fit for the American presidency in theory and hideously so in practice. He was indecisive, like Trump, but this was exacerbated by something completely absent from the Trump persona—deep weakness.

When we look at all of this holistically, the key difference with Trump at least appears to be that his inconsistency isn’t just incidental—it’s wildly performative. He doesn’t hide his unpredictability; he champions it. “I like to be unpredictable,” he has boasted more than once, framing his policy reversals as strategic misdirection, a way of keeping allies, enemies, and the media guessing.

That may serve him in the political arena, but in government, inconsistency has a cost. Foreign allies don’t know whether American promises will last. Government agencies can’t implement policies that change week to week. Business leaders, hungry for regulatory clarity, are left in limbo. And citizens lose faith that their leaders are working with a steady hand. All we need to do is look at today’s news—China refuting Trump’s claim that talks are well underway to again and hopefully finally remove absurdly punitive tariffs between the nations.

There is, of course, a difference between flexibility and flippancy. Great presidents adapt. They change course when new facts demand it. But they do so with purpose, signaling to the nation and the world that leadership means more than instinct. It means coherence.

That’s where Trump’s approach falters. His inconsistency isn’t just about policy—it’s about process. There is often no clear deliberation, no evident consultation with experts, no structured roll-out. A policy may be announced on Monday, walked back on Tuesday, and forgotten by Friday. This instability erodes credibility—not just for Trump, but for the entire government.

Supporters argue that this chaos is intentional—that Trump is a disruptor breaking old norms. They see his reversals not as failures but as recalibrations in real time. But disruption, when not grounded in vision, becomes noise. And governing by impulse is not the same as leading with intent.

Leadership requires clarity. Allies need to trust in American constancy. Citizens need to believe their president governs with something more enduring than impulse. Trump’s challenge is that he blends the stubborn populism of Andrew Johnson with the managerial disarray of Jimmy Carter, in an era where every misstep is immediately broadcast—and archived forever.

Whether this second Trump term results in transformative policy or a deepening of dysfunction will depend not just on what Trump chooses to do, but whether he can ever truly decide what he stands for. History has not been kind to presidents who flail. It remembers those who led.

And leadership, in the end, is not about keeping people guessing. It’s about giving them something to believe in.

The post Trump’s Second Term is a Masterclass in Inconsistency appeared first on CounterPunch.org.