The first month of President Donald Trump’s second term in office seemed to be running on steroids.
It is impossible to predict the picture by the end of his term, though the reality may include the destruction of many arrangements constructed post-World War II in the US and around the world, as well as the disappearance of many liberal features of US society as we have known it in the last 50 years.
Additionally, a lot of imaginative plans are springing from “outside the box” thinking or from impulse, both so typical of Trump. However, the resulting reality may not necessarily reflect what Trump and his supporters currently have in mind.
Last Friday, we got a taste of what lies ahead in terms of the roller coaster we will be riding in the foreseeable future. After we tried to contend with the surprising “voluntary population transfer” and “Riviera in the Gaza Strip” outline that Trump released several weeks ago, the plan appears to be evaporating.
Trump stated in a telephone interview with Fox News last Friday that he had failed to convince Egypt and Jordan to accept displaced Gazans, and that consequently his plan is unworkable. (However, since Friday, Trump has made additional statements that do not necessarily tally with the one quoted.) As I wrote two weeks ago, even if the outline comes to naught, it at least has caused the Arab world to start thinking of an alternative plan of their own.
It is yet to be seen whether any progress will emerge with regard to Trump’s other peace plan relating to Ukraine, by means of negotiations between himself and Russian President Vladimir Putin, without the direct involvement of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky or European representatives. The future of NATO might also be at stake.
As to Trump’s plans for the US: There are much better chances that many of them will actually materialize, though the unorthodox manner in which billionaire Elon Musk – who was appointed by Trump to head the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), in charge of implementing the plans – is already facing serious legal hurdles.
One of many such hurdles arose when, in early February 2025, DOGE staffers gained access to the Treasury’s expansive payment system, which disburses trillions of dollars annually and is normally overseen by a small group of nonpartisan Treasury employees.
While Musk has defended this action, claiming that it was necessary for identifying fraud and inefficiencies, critics argue that it could compromise financial transparency and security while raising myriad conflict-of-interest questions, particularly with regard to Musk himself.
DESPITE MY ideological differences with Trump, I must admit that many of the ideas he and Musk seem determined to push through make sense. There is no doubt that numerous concepts that led to the development of the international order after World War II – promoted primarily by the US – were frequently based on faulty assumptions that were never subsequently rethought.
Thus, one of the basic thoughts behind foreign aid to developing countries following the war was the Marshall Plan, which involved American aid provided primarily to its European allies from 1948-1952 for the reconstruction of the physical and structural damage caused during the war. The total sum distributed was over $13 billion (around $174 billion in current values).
However, the goals of the US were not only to rebuild war-torn Europe but also to construct a new international political and economic system in which physical and trade barriers would be lowered and even removed. Industry would be modernized and made more efficient, Europe would move toward integration in various spheres, and the spread of Communism would be blocked.
In general, the program was considered a great success, and to the present day no one seriously questions the fact that it contributed to Europe’s relatively rapid recovery. However, it should be remembered that the recipients were economically developed, Western democracies, with experience in running modern states.
Foreign aid to the developing world
THE FOREIGN aid to developing countries that appeared in the following years was something different. Most of the recipient states, having emerged from colonial rule, had no, or only very little, experience in running a modern democratic state. They could not necessarily gain such experience from well-meant but not always effective foreign aid.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), was established in 1961 by president John F. Kennedy to administer the American civilian foreign aid and development assistance. Since its establishment, USAID has implemented programs in global health, disaster relief, socioeconomic development, environmental protection, democratic governance, and education.
Since 2001, the agency’s average spending has reached approximately $23 billion annually, and has missions in over 100 countries, in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe.
I don’t think anyone has ever calculated the cost-effectiveness and political effectiveness of all this activity, but if this were to be done, the conclusion would most probably be that, irrespective of good intentions, large quantities of money had gone down the drain, or reached the wrong hands.
The near-total freeze of all of USAID’s activities and drastic manpower cuts carried out by DOGE last month indicate that Musk’s announcement of the intention to shut down USAID might well materialize.
However, it should be recalled that the main issue here is not cost-effectiveness but ideological-effectiveness. It is not surprising that those who have isolationist inclinations (as does Trump) have reservations about foreign aid, even though foreign aid is not based exclusively on altruistic motivations but also on global realpolitik considerations.
If we take a look at the growing list of federal agencies that are being targeted for “treatment,” or elimination, by DOGE, we will find that there are usually specific ideological reasons behind the choices.
Anything having to do with climate change or renewable energy are sure to undergo major policy changes. The same applies to agencies engaged in social diversity, equity, and inclusion such as the promotion of fair treatment and full participation of all people – particularly groups who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination based on identity or disability. Various welfare services are also targeted.
Of course, it is perfectly legitimate for a new administration to change policy. However, doing so by means of an eccentric billionaire who was dropped into a position, which is not clearly defined, by means of an unconventional procedure, and without Congress being involved in the process, is democratically dodgy.
The fact that whole federal administrative bodies might be wiped out, and hundreds of thousands of federal employees might end up being fired overnight, is undoubtedly a nightmarish prospect.
How all this will develop is yet to be seen. Many agencies important in liberal eyes may be swept away without creating anything to replace them.
Nevertheless, if the Trump administration gets rid of a lot of dead wood in the federal administration and a vast federal deficit, in the future there will be a place to reconstruct a much more efficient system.
Incidentally, Israel could also do with some serious Passover cleaning in its administration.
Over the years, the writer has held academic, administrative and journalistic positions, the last one (1994-2010) in the Knesset Research and Information Center. She has published articles on Zionism, European politics, current affairs, and Israeli politics, as well as several books in both Hebrew and English, the last of which was Israel’s Knesset Members – A Comparative Study of an Undefined Job.