News and Insights
The Gap Between Media Headlines and Trump’s Policy Reality
January 15, 2025
It is a longstanding American tradition that your ability to communicate with the masses and affect change significantly diminishes once you leave the Oval Office: “there is nothing more pathetic in life than a former president”, wrote John Quincy Adams who lived for 19 years after his one-term presidency.
President Trump refused to resign himself to this as his reality after losing to Joe Biden in 2020. Instead, he launched the most remarkable comeback in American politics since that of Richard Nixon in 1968. How he returned to the zenith of American political life has much to do with his ability to remain at the top of the media agenda, but this can often obscure the true substance of his words.
Trump is perhaps the master of the short-form world of communications in which we indisputably live. He understands better than anyone the value of a punchy headline, a ten-second clip, a moment of perceived ‘madness’, containing kernels of painful truth for many Americans.
Greenland, tariffs and peace
The Greenland headlines of the past two weeks are the embodiment of a unique diplomatic strategy: communicate the extremes then settle for the middle of the road outcome, relative to the range of options created by this stretched policy window.
The media can often be complicit in this unorthodox policymaking strategy. For example, an Associated Press headline for last week read: ‘Trump refuses to rule out use of military force to take control of Greenland and the Panama Canal’. This headline appears in one of the most reliable and diligent media outlets in the West and was notably syndicated in the Irish Examiner.
For those less familiar with the intricacies of US domestic affairs, they would be forgiven for fearing the worst; a resurgent imperialism and a normalisation of ‘might makes right’ by the core of the Western order.
Yet, even a basic understanding of war powers in the US political system would tell you that a high-level military operation, requiring an occupation, would almost certainly require some form of Congressional authorisation alongside continued budgetary allocations approved by both the House of Representatives and Senate.
Such an authorisation is improbable, given the relative moderation of Senate Majority Leader John Thune and the ability of Senate Democrats to filibuster any relevant debate. A historically narrow GOP majority in the House also complicates matters.
Similarly, talk of buying Greenland from Denmark is unlikely, even if elements of economic coercion are induced. It is ultimately up to Denmark and Greenlanders to make such a decision. Congressional support for economic coercion imposed upon Denmark will likely be limited, given Denmark’s status as a close NATO ally.
The more likely outcome, and one would suspect original objective, is an enhanced consensual American military presence in Greenland, alongside improved access to critical raw materials on the island. There has been a substantial increase in both Chinese and Russian interest in this region, which America perceives as a threat to its interests.
We also have to remember that Trump’s political capital is inherently limited, given his inability to seek re-election and the likely loss of a Republican House majority in the 2026 mid-terms, a race in which members typically seek self-preservation rather than fidelity to the Executive Branch.
On trade and peace in Europe, Trump can play a far larger role, yet incoming Administration officials have already indicated a significant narrowing in the definition of universal tariffs. The Washington Post reported on January 6th that Trump Administration aides are exploring tariffs that “would be applied to every country but only cover critical imports” and “on certain sectors deemed critical to national or economic security”.
Potential impact on Ireland
Areas of named specific interest to Trump include: the defence industrial supply chain, critical medical supplies and energy production. Of highest concern to the Irish economy will of course be what impact this has on our vibrant pharmaceutical and medical devices sectors.
On matters of campaign incongruence, it is worth noting that President Trump ran on ending the Ukraine War on day one, this timeline has now been stretched by several months. In his first term, the border wall never fully materialised; nor did universal tariffs designed to pay for it.
The weeks ahead
The moral of the Greenlandic tale and the overly simplistic debate on tariffs is that there is often a significant gap between media headlines and policy reality when it comes to President Trump. Much of what he says is irresistible to the media – ultimately, he is the President of the United States; the media has a responsibility to report on his activities.
However, as part of such news reporting, media should also carefully consider the actual actionability of what Trump says. In practical terms, is it possible? If not, why not?
It is also the job of political communications professionals who advise European public and private entities to approach the activities of the new Administration with a critical mind – if we are to accurately advise we must accurately assess the policy rationale and legislative possibility for Trump’s musings, rather than submitting to a sensationalist impulse.
A familiarity with US affairs, its branches of Government and system of checks and balances as a whole, rather than solely via the spectacle of Presidential politics will serve public affairs advisors and communicators well as we continue down the path of renewed geopolitical uncertainty.
POSTED BY: Andrew Dunne
