“Move quickly and disrupt,” was Mark Zuckerberg’s mantra when he launched Facebook two decades ago. This approach seemed counter to the principles taught in management schools. Yet, it proved effective, inspiring others like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, who have experienced similar triumphs. Now, Donald Trump is testing if this strategy can be applied to governance.
Prior to his second term, many believed Trump would adopt a softer demeanor after the tumult of his first term, moving towards a statesmanlike approach. He was expected to engage more, seeking to unify in hopes of mirroring the peace-making legacy of Barack Obama.
This expectation has been proven wrong. Trump is pursuing an approach few leaders dare: he is a cultural revolutionary, akin to a Mao Zedong, challenging and dismantling existing systems. He aims to redefine Washington’s function within the US and the nation’s role globally. Aware that his window may be limited to two years before institutional barriers, like the electoral cycle and judiciary, impede his agenda, he understands that if he truly desires change, he must act decisively.
Historian Arthur Schlesinger asserted that the US requires occasional jolts to clear away the bureaucracy and stagnation of an increasingly unwieldy government. The constitution was designed to safeguard against excessive disruption, as evidenced by its role in removing Richard Nixon, albeit only after his radical engagement with China led to the US’s withdrawal from Vietnam. Could this framework apply again with Trump?
A wave of new realism has already swept through NATO’s establishment thanks to Trump. He fundamentally does not view Russia as a threat to the US or Western Europe. Instead, he sees it as historically fixated on its neighboring states—such as the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and the “stans”—which he seems uninterested in defending. Since the end of the Cold War, NATO’s existence has been predicated on the assumption that Russia seeks to conquer Western Europe. If Keir Starmer genuinely believes Russia’s aggression against Ukraine poses a danger to Britain, Trump’s response is that Britain should reduce its welfare state and rapidly bolster its military. American taxpayers will not bear that burden.
Interestingly, it was a Republican, Dwight Eisenhower, who cautioned against overstating the Russian threat to sustain NATO, which was already the most formidable military alliance in history. The defense industry has demanded an endless approach to deterrence, a stance Trump has challenged. For him, US defense is simply about protecting its own borders, and Europe should adopt a similar mentality. This perspective is hardly extreme; no one was clamoring for military action when Russia invaded Georgia or Ukraine in 2014. Disagreeing with this view is one thing; dismissing it as 1930s-style appeasement, as many in the Western defense establishment have done, is quite another.
On the topic of borders, Trump’s views are not that radical. The US absorbs around 150,000 Mexican immigrants annually, adding to the 11 million already residing there. Mexico, Canada, and China continually send imports to the US. Trump believes Americans should pay prices that reflect domestic production costs. If they desire Chinese automobiles, they should accept a 25% tariff on the price. Regarding fentanyl, the approach to compelling countries like China to combat its flow and the resultant fatalities involves imposing hefty tariffs. At times, diplomacy can only prevail through the use of force—force accompanied by uncertainty.
Virtually every president entering Washington vows to reduce bureaucracy, as seen with Warren Harding, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush. In reality, an active president tends to increase bureaucratic structures. Central power in a democracy tends to attract more power. Trump recognizes he lacks the luxury of a prolonged struggle. It’s a scenario akin to Musk wielding a chainsaw: either make substantial cuts, or risk stagnation. Education should not be a federal responsibility but a state issue; thus, the US Department of Education should be abolished. The same applies to USAID and a significant reduction of the state department. The Treasury should be raided for funds. Sure, damage will occur, but it will be no worse than maintaining the status quo. This exemplifies what cultural revolution entails.
The actions of Trump and his administration have often been outrageous. To withdraw funding for Joe Biden’s aid to Ukraine during an active conflict, to label Volodymyr Zelenskyy a dictator, to insult Canada, to threaten Greenland, to halt famine relief in Africa, to suggest a resort in Gaza, to intimidate lawyers, and leak security discussions—all of these actions are hard to fathom. Trump and his team resemble brash bullies with their crude behavior.
Yet, this cacophony signifies the means of breaking existing structures. It highlights the reason behind Washington’s defensive “swamp,” created to protect against inexperienced presidents. As things stand, Trump’s chances of achieving his radical goals seem slim. It is challenging to instigate significant change within a two-year timeframe.
A counter-revolution is inevitable. Greenland is unlikely to mimic Ukraine, and tariffs are likely to decrease. The Democrats will regain their confidence. Many of Trump’s “broken things” will ultimately be repaired. Nonetheless, the turmoil presents overdue challenges to the status quo. NATO could transition to a more pragmatic stance. A perpetual conflict in Ukraine—or beyond—might be averted, and Russia could be reintegrated into the global community, much like China was after Nixon.
This possibility exists. More significantly, the US may reevaluate its position in the world, a role that has entailed a quarter-century of moralistic aggression with significant tolls. It should revert to being just another nation among others. That outcome may very well stem from someone moving quickly and breaking things.
