MS NOW94%
How Trump’s first-year blitzkrieg stalled out 80%
By Hayes Brown0%
6/21/2026, 10:00:00 AM
Topics: US Politics
BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Politically Left Leaning Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 64% saturation with 615 hits. Analysis detected 3,583 faulty-reasoning hits from 961 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 72.3% and a BS Rank of 80% (4,092 of 20,497 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 80.00% of the article peer group.
After President Donald Trump was inaugurated in January 2025, he signed a series of executive orders designed to reshape America’s political landscape.
The waves of action from the White House deluged the press, put elected Democrats off balance and left liberal groups scrambling to respond.
“When you’re winning, it’s like blitzkrieg,” longtime Trump adviser Steve Bannon crowed to The Washington Post early last year.
The president’s opponents, Bannon said, were “surrendering without a fight.”
By blowing up so many norms and taking on so many battles at once, the Trump administration created the very shrapnel that has slowed its efforts.
A year and a half later, what seemed like a relentless flood from the White House has weakened to a trickle.
New reporting from The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan shows that fears of overreach expressed inside the administration proved prescient; the multifront assault has proved vulnerable to counterattack — and in many ways it has been abandoned by the commander in chief.
By blowing up so many norms and taking on so many battles at once, the Trump administration created the very shrapnel that has slowed its efforts.
The “blitzkrieg” has stalled out.
According to Haberman and Swan, at least one senior staffer worried about a White House strategy reminiscent of Silicon Valley’s “move fast and break things” ethos.
Will Scharf, the White House staff secretary and an archconservative lawyer, reportedly had misgivings about efforts within the administration to flex its muscles to further its anti-immigration agenda.
Last spring, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller publicly suggested that Trump could suspend habeas corpus for migrants seeking hearings challenging their detention.
Later, as protests raged against Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s heavy-handed raids, internal debate bubbled up again over whether to invoke the Insurrection Act to shut down the demonstrations.
In each of these moments, Scharf drafted memos to White House chief of staff Susie Wiles explaining the ways that these aggressive moves might well backfire.
(MS NOW has not independently confirmed Haberman and Swan’s reporting but has reviewed the memos that the Times published.)
The memos themselves resemble anodyne briefing memos that any lawyer could produce for decision-makers.
But the carefully worded drafts are a major departure from the bombastic phrasing in legal filings that we’ve come to expect from this administration.
Scharf’s memos express concerns about, as the Times put it, “actions that promised Mr.
Trump quick results but kept producing costly entanglements in court.”
In a memo written last October, after the president threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy the National Guard to Illinois, Scharf’s warning was remarkably direct.
He wrote that while the act provides broad powers to the president, “it is likely that any invocation of the Act would result in vigorous litigation potentially obviating any advantage to be gained in terms of the flexibility that it would provide to the President.”
Trump neither suspended habeas nor invoked the Insurrection Act.
But time has shown that Scharf and other skeptics were right to worry about how bold moves could become self-inflicted wounds.
The administration already has racked up a wild number of court losses on many of its most daring gambits, and dozens of cases remain open.
The departures of thousands of experienced Justice Department lawyers certainly hasn’t helped matters, nor have the unconvincing slapdash efforts to twist the law’s meaning to fit the administration’s preferred narratives.
As the unpopularity of the Trump agenda grew, already bumpy terrain became a major slog, especially after the president launched a war against Iran in late February.
The conflict has theoretically ended, but there are no details on what, if anything, has been gained, aside from a clear legacy of higher prices.
Focus on the war has likewise sapped any political capital that the White House may have hoped to spend in preserving Republican majorities in Congress in this fall’s midterms.
Any remaining momentum in reshaping the government has ground to a near halt with the president’s focus on his own vanity projects.
Any remaining momentum in reshaping the government has ground to a near halt with the president’s focus on his own vanity projects.
Although they’re still corrupt overreaches in their own way, Trump’s plans to gild equine statues around Washington and paint the bottom of the reflecting pool blue don’t rise to the same level as deploying the U.S.
Army against protesters.
As my colleague Zeeshan Aleem recently noted, “having started a disastrous, failed war of choice and holding record-low approval numbers, Trump has retreated to party planning and interior decorating.”
There are clearly portions of the initial “flood the zone” agenda that are still chugging forward.
Mass deportation efforts remain ongoing in the background, though ICE has yet to release updated arrest data since scaling back its more attention-grabbing operations in late January.
Likewise, the administration continues to undercut Congress and wage Trump’s retribution campaign against his enemies.
Federal departments and agencies out of step with the MAGA ethos remain under threat, as new efforts to downsize the Education Department Tuesday show.
And the Supreme Court is still due to weigh in on several cases that could further empower the executive branch.
But the radical period of transformation that those around Trump hoped to foster has not come to pass.
There has been simply too much resistance for the administration to fully overwhelm the system.
There is no time for Trump’s foes to let down their defenses, however.
The retrenchment we’re seeing from the White House ahead of the midterms could precipitate a renewed campaign next year.
But rather than simply accept the oncoming storm as inevitable, there is still time to ensure that in the long term Trump’s sound and fury signify nothing.
Speakers
3speakers11%attributed speech858writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageZeeshan Aleem
29 attributed words28% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.