Summary of Has Trump Achieved a Lot Less Than It Seems?

Overview of Has Trump Achieved a Lot Less Than It Seems?

This episode of The Ezra Klein Show features a long-form interview with conservative thinker Yuval Levin. They reassess Donald Trump’s first year of his second term, arguing that the presidency has produced a high volume of visible activity and headline-making moments but relatively little durable, system-wide policy change. Levin distinguishes between “retail” governing (deal-by-deal, spectacle-driven actions) and “wholesale” governing (legislation, rulemaking, durable regulatory change), and explains where the administration has made lasting moves (notably immigration and tariffs) and where much of the apparent action has been largely performative or short‑lived.

Key takeaways

• Perception vs. durability: The administration has generated a steady stream of dramatic headlines, but measurable, long-lasting policy change is limited compared with past presidents’ first years.
• Retail vs. wholesale governing: Trump’s team favors narrow, targeted deals and spectacle—company-by-company, university-by-university, country-by-country—rather than broad legislation or sweeping regulations that reshape whole sectors.
• Exceptions: Immigration and tariffs are the clearest areas of durable change; those policies have used traditional executive and regulatory powers more effectively than other domains.
• Administrative intimidation: The White House has used federal power to intimidate bureaucracies, contractors, and institutions (e.g., universities, regulatory agencies), changing behavior and culture even where formal policy didn’t.
• Institutional constraints matter: Congress and the courts have checked many efforts. Levin points to a high number of court losses and active Senate resistance on nominations.
• Political costs: The administration’s tone and tactics may consolidate short‑term control but have not broadened popular support; Levin argues that many moves are unpopular and politically risky.
• Right‑wing transformation: Younger conservatives are being shaped by Trump-era politics—more populist, more crisis-minded, and less rooted in classical constitutionalist conservatism—producing lasting ideological shifts on the right.

Notable data and concrete examples

• Federal spending: Despite rhetoric about cutting government, federal outlays rose — about 4% higher in 2025 than in 2024, largely because appropriations remained at prior-year levels and the “Big Beautiful Bill” increased spending in immigration and defense.
• Legislation and regulation: Trump signed fewer laws than any modern-era president in their comparable term; economically significant rulemaking is slower than in several prior administrations.
• NIH spending: Early-year withholding and redirection of NIH funds created a mid‑year spike; by fiscal year end NIH spent 100% of its appropriated funds, sometimes by compressing multi‑year grants into one year—a distortion with downstream risks.
• Nominations and litigation: The Senate has forced withdrawal of roughly 54 presidential nominations in the session; the administration faced about 573 federal lawsuits, lost about 57% of decided cases, and left many suits pending.
• Department/agency pressure: Targeted interventions and investigations — e.g., the controversial DOJ probe into Fed Chair Jerome Powell — exemplify use of law enforcement or oversight as political leverage or intimidation.
• “Retail” deals cited: Specific bargains with universities, pharmaceutical companies, tech firms (e.g., chip-related arrangements), and bilateral manufacturing or trade deals that change behavior in narrow domains rather than setting broad rules.

Core arguments and analysis

• Governing style: Levin frames the administration as centrally driven by a narrow set of priorities (largely funneled through Stephen Miller as a dominant policy actor) and by efforts to be the center of news cycles. That produces many discrete, visible actions but not the systemic rule‑setting that endures.
• Why retail deals matter (and where they don’t): Dealmaking lets the president score fast, tangible wins that fit news cycles, but these are typically reversible or limited in scope; they don’t substitute for legislation or durable regulatory architecture.
• Cultural and systemic effects: Even when policy change is limited, the administration’s behavior has real effects: it can intimidate civil servants, alter institutional planning, and make federal funding and partnerships feel less stable—an “invisible subsidy” to American institutions that is being eroded.
• Limits of authoritarian analogies: Levin acknowledges authoritarian tendencies in tactics (centralized power, intimidation, bypassing Congress) but warns against overusing the autocracy framing because many actions have been restrained by courts, Senate resistance, and lack of public support; he argues for preserving calibrated language to diagnose real escalations if they occur.
• Political trajectory: Levin thinks the administration’s tone and tactics have narrowed its appeal and that the approach is not building the broad public support needed to make changes durable.

Topics discussed (overview)

• Administrative style: centralized policymaking, Stephen Miller’s role, and the narrow funneling of decisions
• Deal vs. rule: difference between retail dealmaking and broad legislative/regulatory change
• Federal spending and appropriations dynamics (continuing resolutions, FY outcomes)
• NIH funding timing and consequences of compressed multi‑year grants
• Immigration: major area of durable policy action using traditional executive/regulatory tools
• Tariffs and trade: country-by-country/company-by-company tariff use; pending Supreme Court implications
• DOJ and law‑enforcement politicization: example of the Powell probe and broader intimidation concerns
• Congress and courts: examples of constraints and pushback (nomination withdrawals, litigation losses)
• Higher education: attempts to rework university behavior via compacts and individual deals; mixed success
• Transformation of the conservative movement: generational shift toward populism and crisis-focused politics

Notable quotes and insights

• “They govern retail rather than wholesale.” — encapsulates Levin’s core framing of the administration’s style.
• “There is more said than done.” — the administration’s rhetoric and headlines overstate durable accomplishments.
• “The president’s personality is shaping the administration.” — decisions and departmental culture reflect the president’s style and incentives.
• “The sheer stability made possible by a predictable, reliable federal government was a massive, invisible subsidy of American life.” — on costs of undermining institutional predictability.

What to watch next (recommended indicators)

• Supreme Court decisions on tariff authority (could reverse or validate trade approaches).
• Outcomes of major litigation against the administration and whether the government’s litigation record changes on appeal.
• Appropriations and budget actions next fiscal year—do spending patterns shift away from prior-year continuations?
• Durability of immigration measures under future administrations or judicial review.
• Signs of institutional backfill or reversion in agencies, universities, and research funding once the news cycle moves on.
• Political polling and coalition changes among younger conservatives—will they moderate, entrench, or evolve further?

Levin’s recommended reading (from the interview)

• Francis Lee — Insecure Majorities (on Congressional dynamics)
• Lindsay Chervinsky (likely Lindsay Chervinsky) — Making the Presidency (history of the presidency after Washington)
• Sarah Isgur — The Last Branch Standing (on the Roberts Court; forthcoming at time of interview)

Bottom line

Levin and Klein conclude that Trump’s second-term presidency is highly active in headlines and targeted interventions, and has produced consequential change in a few areas (immigration, tariffs). But measured against the traditional levers of durable governance—broad legislation, sustained regulatory rule‑making, and stable institutional change—the administration’s record is more limited than it feels in real time. The greater long‑term risk may be the cultural and procedural precedents being set (intimidation, centralized personalization of government), even where statutory or regulatory change remains constrained.