Whether you’re feeling queasy or euphoric, or even a bit of both about the opening weeks of the second Trump presidency, my advice is to remember Stein’s Law. Richard Nixon’s former chief economic adviser, Herb Stein, declared: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”
I’ve found this to be a valuable, if obvious, insight for the stock market, depressed teenagers and, of late, political junkies.
For those who follow such things closely, the sheer pace and audacity of Donald Trump’s opening gambits have breathed new life into cliches such as “drinking from a firehose.” The cadres of lawyers trying to impede both Elon Musk’s DOGE and OMB Director Russell Vought look like they are trying to change a tire on a moving car.
It’s especially difficult to make discerning judgments about the various efforts in a climate where Trump’s most ardent fans seem to support all of it and Trump’s foes oppose all of it. I have a variety of opinions on these zone-flooding efforts. One key distinction is between the policy and the process. I’d put some things in the bucket where I agree with both the policy and the process, including his executive order on trans athletes and school sports. Others, I may agree or disagree with the policy but the process looks illegal or unconstitutional. His executive order revoking birthright citizenship seems patently unconstitutional to me. Though I am decidedly ambivalent about the goal.
The Musk-led effort to dismantle government agencies from within contains all of these tensions, and the arguments over all of it will play out in the courts, and eventually, Congress.
And that’s the key word: eventually. Because the pace and process of the last three weeks is unsustainable. My American Enterprise Institute colleague Yuval Levin makes a valuable point: Every new administration — with the notable exception of the first Trump presidency when Trump was effectively the dog that caught the car — controls the political agenda at the outset. As Levin notes, “They’ve made plans. And you don’t know those plans, generally. They do, and they’re rolling them out at a certain pace and in a certain way. And it just feels like they are in command of the world.”
It’s not just that they have plans. New presidents command maximal loyalty and enthusiasm from their own party and voters. The opposition party is demoralized, licking its wounds and second-guessing its mission and message. Press coverage tends to be maximal because reporters are looking to cultivate sources in the new administration and that requires ample “ beat-sweetening ” coverage.
But eventually, whether you see this period as a glorious honeymoon or dismaying horror show, this chapter ends. Outside events will put the White House on defense. Indeed, Trump’s first attempt to impose tariffs caused the White House to beat a momentary retreat when the stock market tanked as a result. His new round of steel tariffs will have real world consequences, too. And whatever those are, they will have political consequences.
To be sure, the debut of Trump 2.0 is an exaggeratedly steroidal replay of this dynamic, but it’s a familiar dynamic all the same. Soon, Trump will have to get the narrowly GOP-controlled Congress to pass a budget, raise the debt ceiling and work on Trump’s legislative agenda. That will require Republicans to behave less like pundits and more like legislators. And the hostility he is earning from Democrats will make bipartisan legislation exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. This drama will also cause the political spotlight to move down Pennsylvania Avenue in ways that will take Trump out of his comfort zone.
Meanwhile, the courts are already demonstrating the limits of presidential power. The legal system moves slowly, but it also moves according to its own imperatives. Many worry that Trump will refuse to show appropriate deference to the courts when they inevitably deliver political setbacks. If or when he refuses to comply in whole or in part, or even merely launches rhetorical attacks on the judiciary, it will change the political dynamic. If he overplays his hand, members of his coalition might break with him, financial markets panic and some voters surely will blanch. It’s unlikely he’ll attract new supporters in the process.
Trump obviously sees the presidency as a quasi-monarchical, “ personalist ” institution with sweeping powers. He is committed to testing that theory. But he is also more interested in the appearance of such authority than the reality of it. That’s a check on his range of action as well. If overstepping makes him look weak, he might prefer to do less and continue to appear strong to his fans.
Regardless, the window of appearing unchecked and in command of the agenda will close sooner rather than later.
Jonah Goldberg: This cannot go on forever was originally published by the Tribune Content Agency and is shared with permission. Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.




















Eric Trump, the newly appointed ALT5 board director of World Liberty Financial, walks outside of the NASDAQ in Times Square as they mark the $1.5- billion partnership between World Liberty Financial and ALT5 Sigma with the ringing of the NASDAQ opening bell, on Aug. 13, 2025, in New York City.
Why does the Trump family always get a pass?
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche joined ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday to defend or explain a lot of controversies for the Trump administration: the Epstein files release, the events in Minneapolis, etc. He was also asked about possible conflicts of interest between President Trump’s family business and his job. Specifically, Blanche was asked about a very sketchy deal Trump’s son Eric signed with the UAE’s national security adviser, Sheikh Tahnoon.
Shortly before Trump was inaugurated in early 2025, Tahnoon invested $500 million in the Trump-owned World Liberty, a then newly launched cryptocurrency outfit. A few months later, UAE was granted permission to purchase sensitive American AI chips. According to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.”
“How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?” ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked.
“I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before,” Blanche replied, “as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.”
Blanche went on to boast about how the president is utterly transparent regarding his questionable business practices: “I don’t have a comment on it beyond Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.”
Sadly, Stephanopoulos didn’t offer the obvious response, which may have gone something like this: “OK, but the president and countless leading Republicans insisted that President Biden was the head of what they dubbed ‘the Biden Crime family’ and insisted his business dealings were corrupt, and indeed that his corruption merited impeachment. So how is being ‘transparent’ about similar corruption a defense?”
Now, I should be clear that I do think the Biden family’s business dealings were corrupt, whether or not laws were broken. Others disagree. I also think Trump’s business dealings appear to be worse in many ways than even what Biden was alleged to have done. But none of that is relevant. The standard set by Trump and Republicans is the relevant political standard, and by the deputy attorney general’s own account, the Trump administration is doing “exactly the same thing,” just more openly.
Since when is being more transparent about wrongdoing a defense? Try telling a cop or judge, “Yes, I robbed that bank. I’ve been completely transparent about that. So, what’s the big deal?”
This is just a small example of the broader dysfunction in the way we talk about politics.
Americans have a special hatred for hypocrisy. I think it goes back to the founding era. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in “Democracy In America,” the old world had a different way of dealing with the moral shortcomings of leaders. Rank had its privileges. Nobles, never mind kings, were entitled to behave in ways that were forbidden to the little people.
In America, titles of nobility were banned in the Constitution and in our democratic culture. In a society built on notions of equality (the obvious exceptions of Black people, women, Native Americans notwithstanding) no one has access to special carve-outs or exemptions as to what is right and wrong. Claiming them, particularly in secret, feels like a betrayal against the whole idea of equality.
The problem in the modern era is that elites — of all ideological stripes — have violated that bargain. The result isn’t that we’ve abandoned any notion of right and wrong. Instead, by elevating hypocrisy to the greatest of sins, we end up weaponizing the principles, using them as a cudgel against the other side but not against our own.
Pick an issue: violent rhetoric by politicians, sexual misconduct, corruption and so on. With every revelation, almost immediately the debate becomes a riot of whataboutism. Team A says that Team B has no right to criticize because they did the same thing. Team B points out that Team A has switched positions. Everyone has a point. And everyone is missing the point.
Sure, hypocrisy is a moral failing, and partisan inconsistency is an intellectual one. But neither changes the objective facts. This is something you’re supposed to learn as a child: It doesn’t matter what everyone else is doing or saying, wrong is wrong. It’s also something lawyers like Mr. Blanche are supposed to know. Telling a judge that the hypocrisy of the prosecutor — or your client’s transparency — means your client did nothing wrong would earn you nothing but a laugh.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.