Trump's "Retail Governance" Achieves Perception Over Policy

The Trump presidency, now a year into its second term, presents a paradox: a seemingly relentless torrent of activity that, upon closer examination, has yielded surprisingly little durable policy change. This conversation with Yuval Levin reveals that the administration's "retail" approach to governance--focused on individual deals and news cycles rather than wholesale legislative or regulatory reform--creates an illusion of transformation while leaving the fundamental structures of government largely intact. The hidden consequence is a profound shift in how power is perceived and wielded, potentially undermining trust in institutions and fostering a more transactional, less principled political landscape. This analysis is crucial for anyone seeking to understand the true impact of the current administration beyond the daily headlines, offering a strategic advantage in discerning lasting change from ephemeral noise.

The prevailing narrative surrounding Donald Trump's presidency often centers on a whirlwind of executive orders, controversial statements, and high-stakes events, creating an overwhelming sense of constant, dramatic action. However, as Yuval Levin meticulously unpacks in this conversation, a deeper look reveals a significant disconnect between this perceived activity and actual, lasting policy transformation. The administration’s strategy appears to be one of "retail" governance--a series of individual deals and targeted interventions--rather than "wholesale" reform that would reshape laws, regulations, or institutions fundamentally. This approach, while adept at capturing immediate news cycles and projecting an image of decisive leadership, has resulted in a surprisingly constrained amount of durable policy change, particularly when compared to previous presidencies.

One of the core insights is how this "retail" approach to governance creates a deceptive impression of impact. Levin highlights that while the administration makes much of specific actions, the underlying federal spending levels have remained largely unchanged, and the pace of significant regulatory action has been slower than in many preceding administrations. This suggests a strategic focus on generating immediate, graspable events--like a deal with a pharmaceutical company or a specific university--that fit neatly into news cycles, rather than engaging in the slower, more complex work of legislative or regulatory change.

"There’s an important story to tell about the absence of action in the past year, too. The absence of traditional uses of presidential power and authority in our system."

-- Yuval Levin

This focus on individual transactions, Levin argues, leads to a situation where the "distance between perception and reality" expands. The administration excels at creating the feeling of action, but this often masks a lack of substantive, enduring change. For instance, the administration’s engagement with universities, characterized by individual "deals" rather than comprehensive legislative reform of higher education, demonstrates this. Universities, preferring the manageability of one-off arrangements, resist broader policy shifts, leaving the fundamental structures untouched while creating the appearance of administrative intervention. This highlights a critical failure of conventional wisdom: that visible action equates to impactful governance. The reality, as Levin points out, is that durable change requires navigating complex systems, a task that the administration’s transactional approach largely sidesteps.

The consequences of this approach extend beyond mere policy outcomes. Levin points to the "deformation of federal law enforcement" as a significant downstream effect. The use of law enforcement and regulatory bodies to pursue personal grudges or exert leverage, as seen in the probe into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, exemplifies this. This tactic, while potentially intimidating, erodes trust in institutions and blurs the lines between political objectives and impartial governance. The administration's engagement with institutions, Levin suggests, is less about advancing a coherent policy agenda and more about leveraging power to drive behavioral change, often through intimidation or the promise of favors. This creates a system where loyalty and responsiveness to the president's immediate desires are prioritized over institutional integrity or long-term strategic goals.

"The administration has faced a lot of federal cases against it... of the ones that have been decided, the administration has lost 57. That's a very, very poor record for the federal government in federal court."

-- Yuval Levin

Furthermore, the administration’s approach has demonstrably altered the landscape of political discourse and institutional behavior. Levin notes that even if specific policy changes are not durable, the attitude of individuals and institutions towards the federal government has shifted. The constant uncertainty and the perception that federal funding and relationships are subject to the president's personal priorities create a climate of instability. This undermines the predictable, reliable functioning of government, which itself acts as a "massive invisible subsidy of American life." This is a second-order positive consequence for those who benefit from this disruption, as it forces a reckoning with over-reliance on federal structures, but it comes at the cost of broader societal stability.

The exceptions to this pattern, immigration and trade, illustrate the impact of a more traditional, albeit aggressive, application of presidential power. In immigration, the administration has utilized legislative authority, regulation, and bureaucratic operations to enact significant, likely durable changes at the border. In trade, tariffs have been deployed as leverage, demonstrating a more direct, albeit controversial, reshaping of international economic relations. These areas, where more traditional levers of power have been employed, show that when the administration does engage in wholesale action, it can achieve lasting impact.

The underlying management structure of the Trump White House also deviates significantly from traditional models. Levin describes a highly centralized system, often driven by figures like Stephen Miller, where policy proposals are filtered through a narrow set of priorities aligned with the president's known desires. This contrasts with previous administrations where senior officials played a dual role of representing the president to the bureaucracy and vice versa, fostering internal debate and bringing diverse expertise to decision-making. In this model, the "trick of the operation is that it moves decisions down into the bureaucracy," often bypassing the deliberative processes that characterize more conventional governance. This structure, while efficient in generating activity aligned with the president's immediate focus, sacrifices the broader institutional checks and balances that typically temper executive power.

"The president wants himself to be at the end of every story on Fox News... what one way I think about it is he wants to do everything he wants to control everything but it's actually a very narrow notion of what the president can do and it's not using most of the powers of the chief executive of the American government."

-- Yuval Levin

The long-term impact on the conservative movement itself is another crucial, non-obvious consequence. Levin observes that younger conservatives, having come of age politically under Trump, possess a different outlook--more hard-edged, perhaps more despairing, and less committed to traditional constitutionalism. This shift, from a politics rooted in defending what is loved to one driven by opposing what is hated, represents a fundamental change in the ideological core of the right. This generational transformation, though subtle, has the potential for lasting influence on the political landscape, far beyond the durability of specific policies enacted during this administration.

Key Action Items:

• Immediate Action (Next 1-3 Months):

  • Distinguish News from Policy: Actively question claims of significant policy change by cross-referencing with federal spending data and regulatory tracking sites. Recognize that high-profile events may not translate to durable governmental shifts.
  • Monitor Institutional Behavior: Observe how federal agencies and institutions adapt to perceived presidential priorities. Note instances of transactional behavior or deviations from standard operating procedures.
  • Assess Trade and Immigration Policy: Pay close attention to ongoing developments in tariffs and immigration enforcement, as these are areas where the administration has demonstrated a capacity for more wholesale, durable change.

• Short-Term Investment (Next 3-9 Months):

  • Analyze Regulatory Landscape: Track the pace and nature of regulatory actions, noting any significant deviations from historical trends, but be aware that regulatory change is often slow and subject to legal challenges.
  • Observe Federal Appointments: Monitor the Senate's role in confirming or rejecting presidential nominations. A high number of withdrawn nominations suggests institutional resistance and can indicate areas where the administration faces significant pushback.
  • Evaluate Legal Challenges: Track the outcomes of federal court cases against the administration. A consistent pattern of losses, even if appealed, demonstrates constraints on executive power.

• Longer-Term Investment (9-18 Months and Beyond):

  • Gauge Impact on Public Trust: Assess the long-term effects of transactional governance and the perceived politicization of law enforcement on public trust in government institutions. This is a slow-burn consequence that may not be immediately apparent.
  • Understand Ideological Shifts: Observe how the conservative movement evolves, particularly among younger adherents. This ideological transformation, driven by the Trump era, is likely to have a profound and lasting impact on future political dynamics.
  • Track Legislative Momentum: While the current administration may not prioritize it, remain aware of any legislative opportunities that arise, as these represent the most durable form of policy change and can offer a path to reversing or solidifying current administrative actions. This pays off in 12-18 months by providing a contrast to the current administrative approach.