Dr. Christopher Zambakari, MBA, MIS, LP.D.’s Post

In a 2018 essay, Elliott Abrams, a former State Department official, reflected on Trump’s often tumultuous relationship with the officials in his government—and the consequences of that agitation for U.S. power. Two years into his term, “Trump is finding the vast U.S. government to be both an instrument of and a frequent barrier to the implementation of policies that he desires,” Abrams wrote. “There is a long history of conflict between U.S. presidents and the U.S. government,” he noted. But even though the gap between the commander-in-chief and the bureaucracy was not unique to Trump, it had become “one of the administration’s defining characteristics.” The discrepancy between Trump and some of his top officials, Abrams argued, appeared “to be the result of an effort by some within the government, and even in Trump’s cabinet, to blunt his initiatives.” Trump’s opponents “may applaud this internal resistance, but it brings problems of its own—namely, uncertainty as to where the United States stands.” Turmoil at the top of the U.S. government, in other words, was clouding Trump’s actual policy—with dangerous ripple effects for allies and adversaries alike. The question now is how Trump’s second term will differ from his first, as he sets out to staff his administration with advisers who are fully invested in his domestic and foreign policy vision. https://lnkd.in/gne7FPUN

In a 2018 essay, Elliott Abrams, a former State Department official, reflected on Trump’s often tumultuous relationship with the officials in his government—and the consequences of that agitation for U.S. power. Two years into his term, “Trump is finding the vast U.S. government to be both an instrument of and a frequent barrier to the implementation of policies that he desires,” Abrams wrote. “There is a long history of conflict between U.S. presidents and the U.S. government,” he noted. But even though the gap between the commander-in-chief and the bureaucracy was not unique to Trump, it had become “one of the administration’s defining characteristics.” The discrepancy between Trump and some of his top officials, Abrams argued, appeared “to be the result of an effort by some within the government, and even in Trump’s cabinet, to blunt his initiatives.” Trump’s opponents “may applaud this internal resistance, but it brings problems of its own—namely, uncertainty as to where the United States stands.” Turmoil at the top of the U.S. government, in other words, was clouding Trump’s actual policy—with dangerous ripple effects for allies and adversaries alike. The question now is how Trump’s second term will differ from his first, as he sets out to staff his administration with advisers who are fully invested in his domestic and foreign policy vision. https://lnkd.in/gne7FPUN

In a 2018 essay, Elliott Abrams, a former State Department official, reflected on Trump’s often tumultuous relationship with the officials in his government—and the consequences of that agitation for U.S. power. Two years into his term, “Trump is finding the vast U.S. government to be both an instrument of and a frequent barrier to the implementation of policies that he desires,” Abrams wrote. “There is a long history of conflict between U.S. presidents and the U.S. government,” he noted. But even though the gap between the commander-in-chief and the bureaucracy was not unique to Trump, it had become “one of the administration’s defining characteristics.” The discrepancy between Trump and some of his top officials, Abrams argued, appeared “to be the result of an effort by some within the government, and even in Trump’s cabinet, to blunt his initiatives.” Trump’s opponents “may applaud this internal resistance, but it brings problems of its own—namely, uncertainty as to where the United States stands.” Turmoil at the top of the U.S. government, in other words, was clouding Trump’s actual policy—with dangerous ripple effects for allies and adversaries alike. The question now is how Trump’s second term will differ from his first, as he sets out to staff his administration with advisers who are fully invested in his domestic and foreign policy vision. https://lnkd.in/gyQrmChd

In a 2018 essay, Elliott Abrams, a former State Department official, reflected on Trump’s often tumultuous relationship with the officials in his government—and the consequences of that agitation for U.S. power. Two years into his term, “Trump is finding the vast U.S. government to be both an instrument of and a frequent barrier to the implementation of policies that he desires,” Abrams wrote. “There is a long history of conflict between U.S. presidents and the U.S. government,” he noted. But even though the gap between the commander-in-chief and the bureaucracy was not unique to Trump, it had become “one of the administration’s defining characteristics.” The discrepancy between Trump and some of his top officials, Abrams argued, appeared “to be the result of an effort by some within the government, and even in Trump’s cabinet, to blunt his initiatives.” Trump’s opponents “may applaud this internal resistance, but it brings problems of its own—namely, uncertainty as to where the United States stands.” Turmoil at the top of the U.S. government, in other words, was clouding Trump’s actual policy—with dangerous ripple effects for allies and adversaries alike. The question now is how Trump’s second term will differ from his first, as he sets out to staff his administration with advisers who are fully invested in his domestic and foreign policy vision. https://lnkd.in/gyQrmChd

In a 2018 essay, Elliott Abrams, a former State Department official, reflected on Trump’s often tumultuous relationship with the officials in his government—and the consequences of that agitation for U.S. power. Two years into his term, “Trump is finding the vast U.S. government to be both an instrument of and a frequent barrier to the implementation of policies that he desires,” Abrams wrote. “There is a long history of conflict between U.S. presidents and the U.S. government,” he noted. But even though the gap between the commander-in-chief and the bureaucracy was not unique to Trump, it had become “one of the administration’s defining characteristics.” The discrepancy between Trump and some of his top officials, Abrams argued, appeared “to be the result of an effort by some within the government, and even in Trump’s cabinet, to blunt his initiatives.” Trump’s opponents “may applaud this internal resistance, but it brings problems of its own—namely, uncertainty as to where the United States stands.” Turmoil at the top of the U.S. government, in other words, was clouding Trump’s actual policy—with dangerous ripple effects for allies and adversaries alike. The question now is how Trump’s second term will differ from his first, as he sets out to staff his administration with advisers who are fully invested in his domestic and foreign policy vision. https://lnkd.in/gne7FPUN

In a 2018 essay, Elliott Abrams, a former State Department official, reflected on Trump’s often tumultuous relationship with the officials in his government—and the consequences of that agitation for U.S. power. Two years into his term, “Trump is finding the vast U.S. government to be both an instrument of and a frequent barrier to the implementation of policies that he desires,” Abrams wrote. “There is a long history of conflict between U.S. presidents and the U.S. government,” he noted. But even though the gap between the commander-in-chief and the bureaucracy was not unique to Trump, it had become “one of the administration’s defining characteristics.” The discrepancy between Trump and some of his top officials, Abrams argued, appeared “to be the result of an effort by some within the government, and even in Trump’s cabinet, to blunt his initiatives.” Trump’s opponents “may applaud this internal resistance, but it brings problems of its own—namely, uncertainty as to where the United States stands.” Turmoil at the top of the U.S. government, in other words, was clouding Trump’s actual policy—with dangerous ripple effects for allies and adversaries alike. The question now is how Trump’s second term will differ from his first, as he sets out to staff his administration with advisers who are fully invested in his domestic and foreign policy vision. https://lnkd.in/gyQrmChd

In a 2018 essay, Elliott Abrams, a former State Department official, reflected on Trump’s often tumultuous relationship with the officials in his government—and the consequences of that agitation for U.S. power. Two years into his term, “Trump is finding the vast U.S. government to be both an instrument of and a frequent barrier to the implementation of policies that he desires,” Abrams wrote. “There is a long history of conflict between U.S. presidents and the U.S. government,” he noted. But even though the gap between the commander-in-chief and the bureaucracy was not unique to Trump, it had become “one of the administration’s defining characteristics.” The discrepancy between Trump and some of his top officials, Abrams argued, appeared “to be the result of an effort by some within the government, and even in Trump’s cabinet, to blunt his initiatives.” Trump’s opponents “may applaud this internal resistance, but it brings problems of its own—namely, uncertainty as to where the United States stands.” Turmoil at the top of the U.S. government, in other words, was clouding Trump’s actual policy—with dangerous ripple effects for allies and adversaries alike. The question now is how Trump’s second term will differ from his first, as he sets out to staff his administration with advisers who are fully invested in his domestic and foreign policy vision. https://lnkd.in/gne7FPUN

In a 2018 essay, Elliott Abrams, a former State Department official, reflected on Trump’s often tumultuous relationship with the officials in his government—and the consequences of that agitation for U.S. power. Two years into his term, “Trump is finding the vast U.S. government to be both an instrument of and a frequent barrier to implementing policies that he desires,” Abrams wrote. “There is a long history of conflict between U.S. presidents and the U.S. government,” he noted. But even though the gap between the commander-in-chief and the bureaucracy was not unique to Trump, it had become “one of the administration’s defining characteristics.” The discrepancy between Trump and some of his top officials, Abrams argued, appeared “to be the result of an effort by some within the government, and even in Trump’s cabinet, to blunt his initiatives.” Trump’s opponents “may applaud this internal resistance, but it brings with it problems of its own—namely, uncertainty as to where the United States really stands.” Turmoil at the top of the U.S. government, in other words, was clouding Trump’s actual policy—with dangerous ripple effects for allies and adversaries alike. The question now is how Trump’s second term will differ from his first, as he sets out to staff his administration with advisers who are fully invested in his domestic and foreign policy vision. https://lnkd.in/gyQrmChd

In a 2018 essay, Elliott Abrams, a former State Department official, reflected on Trump’s often tumultuous relationship with the officials in his government—and the consequences of that agitation for U.S. power. Two years into his term, “Trump is finding the vast U.S. government to be both an instrument of and a frequent barrier to implementing policies that he desires,” Abrams wrote. “There is a long history of conflict between U.S. presidents and the U.S. government,” he noted. But even though the gap between the commander-in-chief and the bureaucracy was not unique to Trump, it had become “one of the administration’s defining characteristics.” The discrepancy between Trump and some of his top officials, Abrams argued, appeared “to be the result of an effort by some within the government, and even in Trump’s cabinet, to blunt his initiatives.” Trump’s opponents “may applaud this internal resistance, but it brings with it problems of its own—namely, uncertainty as to where the United States really stands.” Turmoil at the top of the U.S. government, in other words, was clouding Trump’s actual policy—with dangerous ripple effects for allies and adversaries alike. The question now is how Trump’s second term will differ from his first, as he sets out to staff his administration with advisers who are fully invested in his domestic and foreign policy vision. https://lnkd.in/gyQrmChd

In a 2018 essay, Elliott Abrams, a former State Department official, reflected on Trump’s often tumultuous relationship with the officials in his government—and the consequences of that agitation for U.S. power. Two years into his term, “Trump is finding the vast U.S. government to be both an instrument of and a frequent barrier to implementing policies that he desires,” Abrams wrote. “There is a long history of conflict between U.S. presidents and the U.S. government,” he noted. But even though the gap between the commander-in-chief and the bureaucracy was not unique to Trump, it had become “one of the administration’s defining characteristics.” The discrepancy between Trump and some of his top officials, Abrams argued, appeared “to be the result of an effort by some within the government, and even in Trump’s cabinet, to blunt his initiatives.” Trump’s opponents “may applaud this internal resistance, but it brings with it problems of its own—namely, uncertainty as to where the United States really stands.” Turmoil at the top of the U.S. government, in other words, was clouding Trump’s actual policy—with dangerous ripple effects for allies and adversaries alike. The question now is how Trump’s second term will differ from his first, as he sets out to staff his administration with advisers who are fully invested in his domestic and foreign policy vision. https://lnkd.in/gne7FPUN