The first and second Trump administrations have sparked very different reactions from critics. The shock of the 2016 election and its aftermath led to widespread concern among liberals about the state of objective truth, not just in the U.S. but also in Britain, where the Brexit campaign had won by misusing key facts. This crisis in knowledge quickly inspired new terms. Oxford Dictionaries chose “post-truth” as its word of the year for 2016, while Merriam-Webster picked “surreal.” The spread of “fake news,” pushed by online bots and Russian trolls, seemed to show that professional journalism had lost its authority in the age of social media. And when Kellyanne Conway introduced “alternative facts” just days after Trump’s 2017 inauguration, the new administration’s dishonesty seemed to be official policy.
This panic over truth had the unintended effect of empowering those it aimed to challenge. Trump often used “fake” to dismiss news outlets that reported unfavorable stories about him or his allies. His supporters in the media amplified his lies and denials, while traditional experts seemed unable to counter such bold deception. Many turned to Hannah Arendt, who wrote in her 1951 book The Origins of Totalitarianism that the ideal follower of a totalitarian system is someone who can no longer tell fact from fiction.
By 2025, the criticism has shifted. For many, the core issue is no longer just lies but stupidity. This view is shared across the political spectrum. In January, centrist columnist David Brooks wrote a piece for the New York Times called “The Six Principles of Stupidity,” arguing that the new administration acts without considering the consequences. In March, Hillary Clinton asked in an op-ed, “How Much Dumber Will This Get?” She admitted that it’s not the hypocrisy but the stupidity that troubles her. Then in April, Marxist writer Richard Seymour published an essay on “Stupidity as Historical Force,” citing Trotsky’s observation that when politics declines, stupidity takes over, and reason is replaced by insults and bias.
Trump’s lies are as constant and obvious as ever, but they now feel routine and expected. After a decade of his political presence, what more can be said about the “war on truth”?
Yet, two aspects of his second term stand out as particularly “stupid.” First, there’s a level of chaotic incompetence, such as when the editor of The Atlantic was mistakenly added to a Signal chat about military operations that included the vice-president and defense secretary. Second, the administration pushes ahead with policies like tariffs and cutting medical research funding, which cause serious harm with no clear benefit, even for Trump’s supporters or voters.
Appointing a prominent vaccine skeptic as health secretary goes beyond rejecting truth; it feels like an attack on progress. Bans on fluoride in drinking water, pushed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in Utah and Florida, show a new hostility to evidence-based governance. The shift from Trump’s first to second term has seen irrationality move from public debate into the heart of government.
When we try to understand others’ actions, a basicThe core idea is to assume people have reasons for their behavior, even if those reasons are emotional, shortsighted, or cynical. Following the group chat scandal and the turmoil over tariffs, social media users turned it into a game to fit the Trump administration’s actions into their preferred explanations. They insisted the Signalgate incident must have been intentional, and the tariffs had to be part of a grand scheme to devalue the dollar for the benefit of some economic interest. The danger here is that by inventing increasingly complex reasons for foolish actions, we mistakenly attribute a kind of cleverness to them—echoing political scientist Robyn Marasco’s observation that “conspiracy theory is a love affair with power that poses as its critique.”
These theories often provoke a rebuttal that doubles down on the accusation of stupidity. The response is that Trump and his team aren’t playing a sophisticated game; we’re simply seeing the fallout of a disturbed man in the highest office, supported by a group of dim and unqualified allies. When political analysis fails, medical psychiatry and an unspoken social Darwinism step in.
Once again, the early months of Trump’s second term brought to mind Mike Judge’s 2006 film Idiocracy, where a soldier of average intelligence wakes up 500 years in the future to find America ruled by idiocy. The film’s portrayal of a society in cultural, technological, and ecological decline feels eerily accurate. Waste and pollution are rampant, the president is a TV celebrity with the demeanor of a pro-wrestler, doctors have been replaced by clumsy machines, and consumers mindlessly repeat ads and slogans from their screens. When the soldier suggests using water instead of a Gatorade-like drink to irrigate failing crops, people quickly abandon the idea once the drink company’s profits drop. In despair, as they turn against him, he asks, “Do you really want to live in a world where you’re trying to blow up the one person who is trying to help you?” And indeed, it seems they do.
We might see mindless consumerism and profit obsession as signs of our own era of foolishness, but the film’s premise is politically troubling. It suggests America fell into this abyss because intelligent people (shown as anxious professionals) stopped having children, while foolish people (portrayed as violent, low-class individuals) bred uncontrollably, flooding the gene pool with stupidity. At a time when racial eugenics, pro-birth policies, and IQ obsession are resurgent, this is not a viewpoint many liberals or leftists can support. Yet, who’s to say that those opposing reactionary “stupidity” don’t sometimes harbor their own eugenic fantasies? After the Brexit vote—another seemingly irrational act of economic self-harm—there were quiet liberal remarks that many Leave voters were so old they’d likely die before Brexit took full effect.
One doesn’t have to entertain such dark thoughts to hope that official foolishness eventually faces consequences. Surely, poor economic policies should lead to failed political strategies and loss of power. Britain’s recent history provides an example: when Prime Minister Liz Truss prioritized her fiscal beliefs over the bond market’s judgment in September 2022, she was ousted after just 49 days, with the Bank of England’s help. With Trump, many have looked to the bond markets as the last bastion of rationality in a foolish world, the force that ultimately makes idiots face reality. This holds true to some extent, especially…When corporate executives with the president’s influence face financial consequences, it only slightly reduces the foolishness, preventing its most extreme forms. Trump’s failure to grasp basic cause and effect—how one policy leads to a particular outcome—extends beyond economic policy and isn’t unique to him.
The issue in this political crisis is how to address stupidity seriously without treating it as purely a mental or psychological problem. Stupidity can be seen as a systemic issue within organizations, not just an individual flaw, as André Spicer and Mats Alvesson discuss in their book The Stupidity Paradox. They argue that stupidity can become “functional,” a regular part of how organizations work, blocking smart ideas and intelligence despite clear negative results.
However, Trumpian stupidity doesn’t seem functional at all. It’s not just organizational chaos or inertia but a deliberate attack on institutions like universities, public health, and market data that help us understand the world. This type of stupidity isn’t an accidental byproduct of smart people losing control; it’s enforced and imposed. It must be addressed politically and sociologically, without overestimating it as a clever strategy or falling into conspiracy theories.
Hannah Arendt noted in 1953 that since the start of the century, meaninglessness has grown alongside a loss of common sense, often appearing as increasing stupidity. She believed that stupidity, in the Kantian sense, had become a widespread ailment and therefore couldn’t be seen as incurable.
Arendt offered a glimmer of hope: if stupidity on a social scale is no longer just an individual cognitive flaw, it must be fixable. She thought people—intellectuals and the general public alike—had stopped using their judgment, opting instead to repeat clichés or follow orders rather than think independently. But what social and political conditions make this normal? One is a society where people expect to be told how to think, which Arendt identified as a key trait of totalitarianism.
This social model of stupidity, often depicted as brainwashed followers in Orwellian imagery, seems plausible for authoritarian regimes but overlooks a crucial aspect of late 20th-century liberal societies. Judgment wasn’t replaced by dictatorship but delegated to impersonal, data-driven systems of collection and analysis.
In the mid-20th century, neoliberals like Friedrich Hayek argued that markets’ main role was to organize society’s knowledge. In smoothly functioning markets with free prices, people wouldn’t need to exercise judgment beyond their personal desires and expectations. In such a system, both “stupid” and “smart” individuals could thrive equally, as the price mechanism would determine collective outcomes.
Similarly, in the early 21st century, Silicon Valley thinkers like Chris Anderson and economists like Abhijit Banerjee have claimed that big data and randomized control trials can make human theories, judgments, and explanations obsolete. Once everything is quantified in minute detail, even measurement becomes unnecessary; algorithms can recognize patterns without human concepts. For instance, you don’t need to define a “rabbit” to identify one; machines can learn which word typically accompanies an image of a furry creature with big ears.
[Image: Elon Musk speaking during an event]In May 2025, at a news conference. Photo: Tom Brenner for The Washington Post via Getty Images.
When people turn to the bond markets to save us from our own foolishness, they aren’t hoping for a return to “common sense.” Instead, they expect that some actions and policies will be rated lower than others. In the same way, large language models, despite their current hype, don’t provide judgment or intelligence—they offer unmatched ability to recognize patterns, drawing from a huge collection of past examples. Models like ChatGPT are smart within their boundaries but can be laughably inept when pushed beyond them. For instance, when Google’s AI search was asked to explain nonsensical phrases like “you can’t lick a badger twice” or “erase twice, plank once,” it confidently produced streams of nonsense. Professors are also becoming familiar with student essays that aren’t exactly good or bad but have that eerie mix of cleverness and absurdity typical of AI-generated writing.
From the neoliberal criticism of government planning in the 1970s to Elon Musk’s Dogecoin, political challenges to established human authority help create room for technologies that quantify, compare, and evaluate everything. This drive to rise above human judgment isn’t new. Hannah Arendt, in The Human Condition, pointed to the 1957 launch of Sputnik as a pivotal moment, offering a detached, cosmic perspective on earthly matters and diminishing their importance. The Cold War, which spawned the internet and countless surveillance tools, was a struggle to gain the ultimate global viewpoint, where no detail was too small to ignore in deciphering enemy intentions. Musk’s obsession with space—Starlink now has around 8,000 satellites orbiting Earth—matches his casual disregard for human judgment. When questioned about his false claim that USAID spent $50 million on condoms for Gaza, which he used to justify cutting its budget, Musk simply replied, “Some of the things I say will be incorrect.”
As more human activities move onto surveillance platforms, truth and falsehood, fact and rumor, become just data points of equal worth. False information and foolish policies can sway markets as much as accurate insights and smart decisions, giving speculators equal chances to profit. One morning in April, the S&P 500 surged 6% on a viral rumor that Trump’s tariff policy was on hold—a story the Financial Times traced to an anonymous X user in Switzerland with no real-world credentials. A follower of Hayek might argue that the mistake was quickly corrected, as the market dropped back 6% within an hour, but the episode was plainly absurd.
In a world dominated by platforms, everything is reduced to behaviors and patterns; meaning, intention, and explanation lose relevance. Political scientists Nancy Rosenblum and Russell Muirhead offer a sharp analysis of this trend in contemporary U.S. politics through their study of the “new conspiracism.”
Traditional conspiracy theories, like those about JFK’s assassination, rely on overly elaborate explanations with complex chains of events and secret alliances. They demand too much coherence and meaning while struggling with chance occurrences. In contrast, the new conspiracism avoids the need for explanation altogether. It thrives on insinuation and repetition rather than evidence. As Rosenblum and Muirhead note, it replaces scientific proof with social validation: if enough people are saying something, then, in Trump’s words, it’s “true enough.”
The new conspiracism finds its technological foundation in digital platforms.The rise of reactionary influencers and “conspiracy entrepreneurs” has brought with it a wave of outlandish and baseless fantasies. These include QAnon theories and the false claim that the Sandy Hook school shooting was staged. Such conspiracies are not meant to help people understand the world but serve as tools for online influence and coordination. They often target enemies and reinforce prejudices without offering any real explanation or political strategy. The main goal of these new conspiracists is simply to have their claims liked, shared, and repeated, prioritizing engagement and revenue above all else.
This perspective moves us beyond the 2016-era concerns about “truth” and helps us navigate today’s political landscape dominated by “stupidity.” When Republican politicians make absurd statements about tariffs, vaccines, or immigration on television, is it more accurate to call it lying, or is it something else entirely? Often, they are merely echoing talking points that have spread from key figures in the conspiracist network, such as Trump and RFK Jr. Some of these claims serve as loyalty tests, like affirming the stolen election narrative, while others are simply bizarre and offensive, such as blaming DEI hiring policies for wildfires in Los Angeles or a fatal plane crash. Viewing these statements as judgments or explanations might lead one to question the speaker’s reasoning, but it’s more useful to see them as memes. The individuals may sound foolish, but they are products of a media environment that prioritizes symbolic mimicry over logical explanation, all to fill airtime and generate content.
In her essay on stupidity, Hannah Arendt differentiated between “preliminary” and “true” understanding. Preliminary understanding involves applying existing concepts to specific situations, which can be circular and clever but falls short when faced with truly novel human actions. One can avoid the crudest forms of stupidity yet still fail to grasp the full significance of political and historical moments. Even the smartest individuals or systems can become stuck in this preliminary understanding.
Arendt proposed that imagination, alongside judgment, is essential for progressing to a deeper understanding of meaning. She saw imagination as a uniquely human ability to grasp truth through speculative leaps, relying on empathy and creativity rather than scientific methods. Politics often involves navigating unprecedented situations, which requires a form of judgment closer to aesthetics than science.
“Imagination alone,” Arendt wrote, “enables us to see things in their proper perspective.” She challenges us to approach truth and meaning from the viewpoint of a historian, who sees human events as a series of disruptions and beginnings, rather than from the perspective of an economist or data scientist.
This is something that the “closed world” of digital platforms and market surveillance cannot offer: an understanding that goes beyond empirical data. Artificial or market intelligence can learn rapidly from existing information, but its range of possible outcomes, though vast, is finite. In these gamified environments, history is treated as complete, and all that’s left is a multitude of behaviors. Every possible event, statement, or idea is already present, waiting to be uncovered in the real-time computations of the market or the archives of data banks.
Trump and his followers exemplify this dynamic.The administration is clearly incompetent. They have no idea what they’re doing, ignore important facts and precedents, and show no concern for the consequences affecting both people and the environment. The recent tariff failures have ironically boosted the credibility of economists, demonstrating through hard evidence that international trade generally improves prosperity and efficiency. This proves that basic economic principles do apply in the real world, and disregarding them is foolish. Sadly, we’re seeing similar mistakes in public health.
However, if our only response to this incompetence is to blindly trust expert opinions again—though that might help in some cases—we’ll miss the chance to examine why such foolishness persists. We won’t question how modern capitalism not only allows but often rewards unwise policies and practices. Relying on financial markets, digital platforms, or their combinations to make decisions encourages people to act thoughtlessly, even if these systems operate on complex calculations.
Placing hope in Trump or his movement would be misguided, but perhaps such extreme incompetence on a global scale could spark genuine insight. No external force—whether markets, algorithms, or technology—can save us. Only our own creativity can.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about An analysis of thoughtless actions making sense of Trumps second act designed to be clear concise and natural
BeginnerLevel Questions
1 What does thoughtless actions mean in this context
It refers to actions statements or decisions by Donald Trump that appear to be made impulsively without a longterm strategic plan or without a full consideration of the immediate consequences
2 What is Trumps second act
Trumps second act primarily refers to his political life and influence after his first term as president including his 2024 campaign his legal battles and his continued role as a dominant figure in the Republican Party
3 Why is it important to analyze his actions
Understanding the patterns and impacts of his behavior is crucial for comprehending modern American politics the direction of the Republican party and the nature of political leadership and communication in the digital age
4 Isnt calling his actions thoughtless just a biased opinion
The term thoughtless is used here as an analytical lens meaning it focuses on the apparent lack of conventional deliberation The analysis itself would examine the effects of this style regardless of ones personal political bias
5 Can you give a recent example of a thoughtless action
An example could be a spontaneous social media post that creates a significant unplanned news cycle or a public statement that contradicts the messaging of his own political allies forcing them to react
Advanced Strategic Questions
6 If his actions are often thoughtless how does he maintain such a strong political base
Analysis suggests that his impulsive style is perceived by his supporters as authentic and antiestablishment It breaks from scripted politics which resonates with voters who feel ignored by traditional politicians
7 Whats the strategic benefit of this apparent lack of strategy
The constant chaos and unpredictability can overwhelm opponents and the media keeping them perpetually on the defensive It also ensures he remains the absolute center of attention which is a powerful political tool
8 What are the biggest risks associated with this approach
The primary risks are unintended escalation of conflicts alienation of moderate voters and creating legal liabilities that can be used against him in court
