The Good the Bad and the Ugly and some solutions for the first 100 Days

DOGE (The Good), Tariffs (The Bad), and Uncertainty (The Ugly)

This post evaluates the first 100 days of the Trump Administration, focusing on three major themes: DOGE (the good), tariffs (the bad), and uncertainty (the ugly). Draining the swamp of waste and reforming bureaucratic red tape is long overdue. Broad, unfocused tariffs are harmful, especially when targeted tariffs or excise taxes would be a better alternative. And uncertainty—especially in markets and international trade—is always ugly.

The Good: DOGE and Bureaucratic Reform

Let’s start with the so-called “fourth branch” of government—the federal bureaucracy. According to the Constitution, only three branches of government exist. Yet, in practice, the bureaucracy operates as a powerful, unelected force shaping public policy.

When I taught AP Government, I was struck by how much of the curriculum focused on departments created to execute legislation under presidential direction. It felt like a massive expansion of executive power. Bureaucrats who excel at implementing programs often end up with year-end surpluses. But once they’re penalized with budget cuts for underspending, they quickly learn to spend every dollar to avoid losing funds in the future. Over time, this fosters inefficiency and waste. The bureaucrats are not at fault the system is. 

Congress is also complicit. Lawmakers often create new programs to secure votes back home. A good example: a congressman from Pennsylvania once pushed for a highway that bypassed the small town of Everett. The road paralleled the Pennsylvania Turnpike in a rural area with little traffic. Only decades later, with the completion of I-99, did the project make sense. This is just one of many examples where legislators attach pet projects to important bills, creating new bureaucratic needs for design, implementation, and oversight.

The federal government was never intended to be this large. Federalism was designed to divide power between the states and the national government. DOGE is working to modernize federal agencies through software automation, replacing outdated, labor-intensive practices. More importantly, it’s attempting to roll back federal overreach and return more power to the states. When states take on more responsibility, government becomes more transparent, closer to the people, and easier to hold accountable.

The Bad: Tariffs

Tariffs are the downside of the Trump Administration’s first 100 days. President Trump admires President McKinley’s expansionist policies, which included tariffs to protect American industry. But history tells us that after the McKinley Tariff of 1890, Republicans lost 93 seats in the midterm elections. If history repeats itself—as it often does—Trump could lose control of the House and its power of the purse.

Tariffs have been used effectively in the past. Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay supported them to grow American industry and fund a young government. But the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of the 1930s showed the danger of relying on them too heavily. It sparked a trade war, with other countries retaliating—especially hurting American farmers.

In today’s context, farmers once again stand to suffer from retaliatory tariffs on agricultural exports. It would be more equitable to shift the burden toward billionaires and high-end consumers by using excise taxes on luxury goods instead of broad tariffs. Targeted tariffs or excise taxes would raise revenue with less economic pain. An innovative idea might be to tie tariff revenue to deficit reduction—something most Americans could support, especially in a time of fiscal austerity.

The Ugly: Uncertainty

Uncertainty is the most troubling feature of these first 100 days. The rapid implementation of DOGE reforms, led by Elon Musk, has caused widespread concern. The effort has been unusually transparent. The fast pace was justified because of the potential fallout from the mid-term elections, but has rattled both the markets and consumer confidence. Uncertainty has spread globally, especially due to retaliatory tariffs, amplifying economic fears.Mr. Musk has given the deficit as his rational for taking action, but the most savings that we will harvest from these cuts will likey be 14% of the need to cut the deficit. 

Fear is a powerful force. If the president wants to counter it, he must provide steady leadership and rational arguments—especially those tied to reducing the federal deficit. For instance, encouraging Americans to buy treasury bonds could be a patriotic and practical way to strengthen the dollar, support retirees, and increase federal revenue. This strategy has been used successfully in past crises, especially during wartime.

The president could also reframe his message: declare a “war on the federal deficit.” If raising taxes on billionaires is politically unviable, excise taxes on luxury items could achieve similar goals without the stigma of income taxes. Victory Gardens could be promoted to help offset rising food prices, and subsidies for electric vehicles could reduce fuel demand and lower gas prices.

Conclusion

Uncertainty must be met with strong leadership. President Trump has a loyal base and significant influence. He can redirect his message toward practical solutions that empower everyday Americans to help make the country stronger. If he does, these first 100 days could Make America Great Again.