Thursday, October 16, 2025

The disrupter in chief

 


The Disrupter in Chief Gets Transformational Results at Home and Abroad

No president has ever delivered so much so quickly. But Trump’s biggest challenge lies ahead in Xi Jinping’s China.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/trump-the-disrupter-in-chief-479da627?mod=wknd_pos1

By Niall Ferguson

Oct. 15, 2025 8:00 pm ET


The U.S. Constitution defines the president as the Commander in Chief. It is a solemn and grueling responsibility. It broke Lyndon Johnson, turned Barack Obama’s hair gray and accelerated Joe Biden’s decline into dotage. Many voters ultimately cast their votes for the candidate who is the more plausible Commander in Chief. I was one of many who struggled to imagine Kamala Harris in that role.


Say what you like about Donald Trump, commanding comes naturally to him. Not only does he thrive on the job’s relentless demands. He goes further. He has emerged this year as the Disrupter in Chief.


His “Art of the Deal” approach—the outrageous opening bid, then the wheeling and dealing—has delivered transformational results at home and abroad in the space of nine months, with this week’s Gaza deal even briefly shutting up his legion of critics. But how far Trump’s winning streak continues depends heavily on how he handles what is by far his greatest challenge: an increasingly assertive China led by a no less ambitious disrupter.


“Democracy,” H.L. Mencken famously said, “is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” Well, Trump has given it to American voters good and hard this year. They wanted immigration restriction. They got it with breathtaking speed. Net migration to the U.S. averaged 2.6 million people a year under Joe Biden, according to the Congressional Budget Office, but will shrink this year to just 400,000, thanks to closure of the southern border and an aggressive new deportation drive. Estimates by AEI and my own firm put the net migration figure for 2025 even lower, at zero or even in negative territory.


Voters were mad at Joe Biden over inflation. Consumer price inflation was 2.9% in August, slightly down since Trump was sworn in and a third of the rate we saw in the summer of 2022. Oil prices are down 23% since Inauguration Day. Even raising the average tariff rate to a height not seen since 1934 has barely caused inflation to rise.


As for the woke mania that swept through U.S. higher education like a mind virus over the past decade, Trump has gone after it with a bazooka. I don’t love to see the federal government intruding in the governance of universities. But in forcing change that was never going to happen spontaneously, Trump’s bazooka is looking more effective than Elon Musk’s chainsaw was against the federal bureaucracy.


Federal agents patrol the halls of immigration court in New York City in July. Trump’s policies have sharply reduced immigration to the U.S. while sparking a public backlash.

Federal agents patrol the halls of immigration court in New York City in July. Trump’s policies have sharply reduced immigration to the U.S. while sparking a public backlash. Spencer Platt/Getty Images

In short, no president has delivered so rapidly on so many of his campaign pledges. It’s not just the 217 executive actions in 100 days; it’s the stream of social media “truths” and the almost daily exchanges with the press corps. If you wanted a “vibe shift” last year, you really got one. If you hate Trump, maybe you just hate the times we live in. For Trump is the zeitgeist on a golf-cart.


The problem, as Mencken implied, is that voters don’t really want their wishes fulfilled “good and hard.” According to the RealClearPolitics polling average, Trump’s net approval rate is at -6.3 percentage points, compared with +6.2% back in January. This is especially obvious when sentiment is broken down issue by issue. His net approval on the economy is -15%; on inflation, -27%.


On immigration, there has been a backlash, with many Americans apparently unhappy over the harshness of Trump’s crackdown. According to a Gallup poll published in July, the share of voters wanting immigration to decrease has plunged from 55% last year to 30% today. A record 79% of U.S. adults now say immigration is a good thing for the country. Trump’s handling of the issue is approved by 35% of voters, while 62% disapprove.


We have more than 12 months to go until the midterms. Despite the Democrats’ seeming inability to come to terms with why they lost the 2024 election, and their urban base’s readiness to embrace Democratic Socialists such as Zohran Mamdani, the party is still capable of winning back the House. Even with close to full employment, Trump’s polling numbers are weakening. And, as happens so often in a second presidential term, there is a quietly festering scandal—the mysterious Jeffrey Epstein files, which were going to be released until they weren’t.


Nor should we forget the brewing debt crisis in the developed economies. Long-term interest rates have already leapt upward in France and Japan. When you add up the impacts of Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill and tariffs, the U.S. is on track to run a deficit of $1.8 trillion this year, only a fraction down from last year. Total public debt is now at 124% of GDP, higher than in the wake of World War II.


In short, although Trump’s most excitable critics continue to predict the descent of the republic into dictatorship, there is still a lot of politics-as-usual in America today. Exhibit A: the latest government shutdown, now in its second week. Exhibit B: the 439 legal cases brought against the administration, many of which it seems likely to lose. Exhibit C: the 119 nominees for government positions still being considered by the Senate.


Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, center, attends the president’s address to Israel’s parliament on Oct. 13. Kushner played a key role in brokering a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.

Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, center, attends the president’s address to Israel’s parliament on Oct. 13. Kushner played a key role in brokering a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. JALAA MAREY/Press POOL

On the other hand, the Disrupter in Chief keeps putting points on the board internationally. This is most obvious in the Middle East, with the agonizing ordeal of the surviving Israeli captives coming to a dramatic end this week. We went from the tongue-in-cheek AI-generated vision of a “Gaza Riviera” to an imaginative 20-point plan that combined short-run solutions to the hostage crisis with a bold longer-run plan for “temporary transitional governance” by a “technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee,” overseen by a new “Board of Peace,” chaired by Trump and including former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.


The last part may sound implausible. But what mattered last week was the willingness of the Gulf states, as well as Turkey, to sign up for Trump’s plan. The return of Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, to clinch the deal was a reminder that the first Trump administration’s most impressive achievement was brokering the Abraham Accords between Israel and several Arab states. The real purpose of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attacks was to derail the next phase of that process, which would have established a new relationship between Israel and Saudi Arabia. If that process is back on track, it constitutes a remarkable feat of diplomatic salvage.


Also disruptive is the Trump administration’s policy of military pressure on the criminal regime of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. For most of this century, the U.S. has been an ineffectual force in Latin America. Previous attempts to halt the Venezuela implosion were notable for their lack of success. But by launching air attacks on ships trafficking narcotics, Trump is squeezing Maduro where it hurts. The hope is clearly to sow dissension within the ranks of his corrupt police and security forces.


We are currently seeing the biggest build-up of U.S. military power in the Caribbean since Ronald Reagan’s invasion of Grenada—a powerful indication that the Monroe Doctrine is back (call it the Don-roe Doctrine). Last week’s revelation that Maduro’s negotiators were prepared to offer the U.S. access to Venezuela’s oil and other mineral resources testified to the mounting panic in Caracas.


Not every disruptive move has worked, to be sure. Trump’s much-criticized bromance with Vladimir Putin would seem to be on the rocks following the summit in Alaska in August, where the Russian president spurned Trump’s proposal to end the war in Ukraine. On the other hand, the Europeans now understand that it is up to them to preserve Ukraine as an independent buffer between themselves and Putin. At the NATO summit in The Hague in June, Trump achieved something that has eluded every president since Richard Nixon: He compelled the Europeans to commit to increase defense spending, from 2% to 5% of GDP. And Trump has effectively ended most U.S. aid to Ukraine, offering instead to sell Tomahawk missiles to the Europeans, which they can gift to Kyiv if they so choose.


Yet the biggest challenge facing the Disrupter in Chief remains China.


Chinese President Xi Jinping in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, Sept. 30. Xi’s China is ‘the biggest challenge facing the Disrupter in Chief.’

Chinese President Xi Jinping in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, Sept. 30. Xi’s China is ‘the biggest challenge facing the Disrupter in Chief.’ casares/epa/shutterstock

It is worth remembering that 10 years ago, Trump appealed to the American electorate by challenging the bipartisan consensus that China’s economic rise was a “win-win,” also beneficial to the U.S. The central idea of Trumpism, ever since the 1980s, has been that free trade is not fair trade and that the U.S. has been made a fool of by both rivals and allies.


The National Security Strategy of 2017 set Washington on a new course of competition, if not confrontation, with China. That began with the imposition of tariffs on Chinese imports but soon escalated into measures directed against Chinese technology companies.


Yet there has always been an ambivalence about Trump’s attitude to China. While others in his first administration seemed eager to go from a trade war to a new Cold War, Trump himself preferred the idea of using tariffs and export controls to negotiate a deal that would level the playing field in U.S.-China trade.


Even as China hawks in the second Trump administration have argued for higher tariffs and tougher export controls, especially on semiconductors, Trump has been angling for a call, a meeting, a summit with President Xi Jinping, in the belief that the elusive trade deal is still attainable. To that end, a deal was done to keep TikTok alive in the U.S.


SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

What do you think about President Trump’s second term so far? Join the conversation below.


Until last Thursday, we seemed to be heading for a Trump-Xi summit at the APEC meeting in South Korea later this month. Then China upped the ante. On Taiwan, China signaled that it wanted the U.S. to state its opposition to the island’s independence more emphatically. China also expanded its export controls over rare earths—a move that potentially brings all medium and heavy rare-earth elements under Beijing’s export-control regime.


To understand why this matters so much, you need to understand the distinctive character of today’s Cold War II—an ideological, technological and geopolitical rivalry between two economically intertwined superpowers. No one can deny that President Xi has achieved many of the goals set out in “Made in China 2025,” his ambitious plan to establish Chinese dominance at the frontier of global manufacturing. Chinese electric vehicles are eating the world’s automobile markets. Chinese solar and wind capacity under construction exceeds the rest of the world’s combined.


China’s really great leap forward has been in terms of electricity generation. In 14 years, it has gone from generating as much as the U.S. to generating more than twice as much. True, China still burns a lot of coal, and it is inferior to the U.S. in terms of hydrocarbon production. On the other hand, it dominates key minerals, mining about two-thirds of the world’s supply of rare earths and processing around 90% of the total.


Red U9 sports car with open doors on display at Auto Shanghai.

At an auto show in Shanghai in April 2025, people look at the U9 sports car by Yangwang, a luxury brand of Chinese electric-vehicle giant BYD. Xi aims to make China dominant in advanced manufacturing. go nakamura/Reuters

Rare earths proved to be a trump card in the trade war this spring. As U.S.-China tariffs soared in early April, Beijing said it would begin requiring licenses for export of certain rare-earth metals. In May, Chinese exports of rare-earth magnets tumbled 74% from a year earlier. Automobile manufacturers howled. Following a truce between the U.S. and China in Geneva in mid-May, Beijing pledged to ease the restrictions.


Trump was not happy last Friday, as he made clear on Truth Social. “Nobody has ever seen anything like this,” he railed in response to China’s new and much broader rare- earth restrictions. “I have always felt that they’ve been lying in wait, and now, as usual, I have been proven right!…But the U.S. has Monopoly positions also, much stronger and more far reaching than China’s. I have just not chosen to use them, there was never a reason for me to do so—UNTIL NOW!”


Trump appeared to call off the planned meeting with Xi. And late on Friday he announced his threatened countermeasures: “a Tariff of 100% on China, over and above any Tariff that they are currently paying”—in other words a return to the virtual embargo of April—plus “Export Controls on any and all critical software.” Then on Sunday, Trump reverted to his version of detente: “Don’t worry about China, it will all be fine! Highly respected President Xi just had a bad moment.”


Does Trump have real leverage? I think so. China has developed very competitive AI models such as DeepSeek, but AI needs ever more computing power, which requires ever more advanced semiconductors. China’s domestic semiconductor production is growing rapidly, but it is focused on legacy chips, suitable for cars, not for AI data centers. Most AI chips used in China are designed in the U.S. by Nvidia and manufactured in Taiwan by TSMC; many are smuggled into China to get around U.S. restrictions. If rare earths are our chokepoint, the most advanced chips are China’s.


It’s appropriate that the verdict of history on the Disrupter in Chief may depend on the outcome of this escalating tech war. Ever since Clay Christensen introduced the concept of innovative disruption in his 1997 book “The Innovator’s Dilemma,” Silicon Valley has been in love with disruption. Peter Thiel was the first venture capitalist to realize Trump’s potential to be a disrupter of American politics. This was a genius-level insight that caused Thiel to be hounded out of San Francisco as a heretic. By 2024, however, his view was shared by a rising proportion of tech titans, not least Elon Musk and Marc Andreessen. Trump won their support above all because he promised far less AI regulation than the Biden-Harris administration was threatening.


There can be little doubt that Trump 2.0 has disrupted not only American domestic politics but also the international order. There is no going back to the old ways. That was tried under Joe Biden. It ended abjectly. The post-1945 order is dead: The bipartisan consensus in favor of free trade and a U.S.-led system of collective security has been buried.


But Trump is not the only disrupter in today’s world. In the red corner is President Xi. He, too, wants to disrupt the post-1945 order—but in a way that puts China first, not America. And he, too, has a keen eye for an adversary’s weak spot.


This latest storm may blow over, but Cold War II is not about to stop. Anyone who confidently predicts its outcome is bluffing.


Niall Ferguson is the Milbank Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and founder of the advisory firm Greenmantle.


Wednesday, October 15, 2025

Female polarity shift

 

The average woman does not update her beliefs in response to “evidence.” She does so by feeling. Women will see the light when three structures in the collective emotionsphere are shattered: 1. The illusion of a leftist consensus. Right wing people will feel more and more emboldened to voice their opinions in public. Leftist opinions that used to run free and wild in schools and workplaces will be faced with increasing shame and ridicule. Suddenly, the average woman will sense the presence of another tribe—one that is now ascendant. The leftist tribe will feel increasingly unsafe to the average woman. 2. The trendiness of therapy, trauma, medication, childlessness, & “f**k men” singledom. As the hormonally lobotomized Millenial cohort of women continues to age into destitution, insanity, and extreme ugliness, the myriad trends that have disconnected women from their bodies (and therefore from the truth) will become passé. This will accelerate as white trash populations openly embrace 2016 genderqueerness and Tumblrism. Associated left-wing politics will just “feel” ugly and trashy in an inexplicable way. 3. The link between the left and “empathy.” There is nothing empathetic about spiteful mutant communism. There is nothing kind about sacrificing children to foreign invaders. As leftism runs its course across the West, its true nature becomes more evident. In the left’s imminent death throes, the most hateful of its freaks will pour out from the woodworks, frothing at the mouth, attacking and assassinating, openly calling for the death of children. Any woman with a heart will sense this—any woman merely wanting to maintain an appearance of being nice to her peers will also be forced to jump ship. As a feeler of vibes myself, I’m very confident that we are approaching a female polarity shift. It’s only a matter of time
Quote
RAW EGG NATIONALIST
@Babygravy9
Nobody has yet provided a compelling reason why modern women vote so consistently against their own interests across the entire Western world, and continue to do so in spite of compelling evidence that’s exactly what they’re doing. x.com/jonatanpallese…


Tuesday, October 14, 2025

What produces economic growth

Setting aside the Restoration, economic growth results from "prescriptive knowledge and propositional knowledge."

The Nobel Nods at Economic Growth

Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt explain how knowledge and freedom combine to produce prosperity.

By David R. Henderson

Oct. 13, 2025

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-nobel-nods-at-economic-growth-d3260a73?st=L5suJD&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

The most important issue in economics is growth. That’s why Monday’s announcement of three winners of the 2025 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is heartening. The Nobel committee awarded it to three economists “for having explained innovation-driven economic growth.” The winners are Dutch-born American-Israeli Joel Mokyr of Northwestern University and Tel Aviv University, Frenchman Philippe Aghion of the Collège de France, Insead in Paris and the London School of Economics and Political Science, and Canadian Peter Howitt of Brown University. Mr. Mokyr won half of the approximately $1.16 million award, while Messrs. Aghion and Howitt will share the other half.

Mr. Mokyr is an economic historian who has focused on understanding why we got the so-called hockey stick of human prosperity, a metaphor in which the long, flat shaft represents centuries of economic stagnation before the Industrial Revolution and the short, sharp blade represents sustained growth in gross domestic product and in GDP per capita in the U.S. and much of Europe after the revolution. Messrs. Aghion and Howitt have focused on theoretical modeling of economic growth, enabling us to understand how various factors interact to bring about growth. Their work complements Mr. Mokyr’s.

Mr. Mokyr argues that two factors were responsible for the 19th-century Industrial Revolution that kicked off growth: prescriptive knowledge and propositional knowledge. Prescriptive knowledge is about the “how”—the knowledge of things like recipes, drawings, instructions, procedures, and techniques. Propositional knowledge, which is more fundamental, is about the “what” and “why”: It explains why something works.

With detailed study of the interaction between science and practical know-how, Mr. Mokyr showed the importance of both kinds of knowledge. He was able, for instance, to explain why Britain grew. One important factor—the propositional part—was “the Republic of Letters” during the 17th and 18th centuries, an international community in Europe and the Americas that exchanged scientific information. The other factor—the prescriptive part—was the large number of skilled artisans and engineers in Britain. Also important was that Britain was an open society in which people were free to innovate. By contrast, China, a technological leader in earlier centuries, didn’t achieve sustained economic growth. China’s government, the Nobel committee noted, halted geographical exploration in the 1430s, cutting its people off from the rest of the world.

Messrs. Mokyr, Aghion, and Howitt all believe in the importance of what Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter called “creative destruction.” When some firms innovate, they create new industries and new products, in the process destroying or replacing old ones. A classic example is Henry Ford’s Model T destroying the market for horse-drawn carriages. Mr. Mokyr calls the Industrial Revolution “the mother of all creative destruction.”

In the early 1990s, Messrs. Aghion and Howitt, who weren’t satisfied with existing mathematical models of economic growth, built a model in which creative destruction was a crucial component. The father of modern economic growth models was the late Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Robert Solow, who won the Nobel Prize in 1987 for the growth model that he had produced in the 1950s. In Solow’s model, the big driver of growth was technological change, but it was exogenous. Translation: Nothing in his model explained why technological change happened. Messrs. Aghion and Howitt wanted to do so, and they succeeded.

Economists after Solow, particularly Robert Lucas and Paul Romer, had models of economic growth with endogenous technological change. Messrs. Aghion and Howitt contributed to this body of research with their work on creative destruction. A firm that creates a new product or comes up with a cheaper way of producing an existing product has a strong incentive to do so if the firm gets a patent that allows it to earn monopoly profits for the life of the patent. Other firms are still free to come up with new products, and so the temporary monopolies that patents give don’t kill economic progress.

Each year, I wait with trepidation to see who has won the Nobel Prize in economics. Many economists seem to want the prize to be given for complex models that don’t matter much. When I saw who won it on Monday, I was happy. Economic growth is the reason extreme poverty has become much rarer around the world, life expectancy has increased dramatically, and most Americans now own many things that were unobtainable luxuries decades ago. All three winners recognized that because economic growth is crucial, we need to understand how we got it and how we can keep it.

Mr. Henderson is a research fellow with Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and editor of the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.



Gaza and the future

"Mr. Trump’s genius was to find a framework within which these different powers with their different priorities could work together toward their common goal. It is a real accomplishment and deserves the world’s gratitude and respect."

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/trumps-triumphal-march-5bb61e77?mod=opinion_lead_pos8

Trump’s Triumphal March

But the core cause of the conflict hasn’t been and perhaps can’t be resolved.

Walter Russell Mead

 ET

image
President Donald Trump speaks at the Knesset in Jerusalem, Oct. 13. CHIP SOMODEVILLA/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

Even by the standards of Donald Trump’s larger-than-life second term, Oct. 13 looms large. The release of the last living hostages from their inhuman and indefensible captivity, President Trump’s speech to the Knesset, and his presence shortly afterward in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, at a global summit that only he could convene were extraordinary.

It is much too soon to tell what it all means. Events are still moving quickly, and it will be months or years before the results can be fully assessed. But as joyful videos of hostages reuniting with their families flooded the internet, we know five things about what just happened.

The first is that the hostages are home. The dark cloud hanging over Israel and the Jewish people worldwide since the atrocities of Oct. 7, 2023, has lifted. There is mourning for the dead, horror at the survivors’ suffering, and gratitude for the heroism of those who gave their lives in Israel’s defense after the attacks. The nightmare is over and the healing can begin.

The second is that only Mr. Trump could have made this happen. No other living politician could have reassured Israel, threatened Hamas and patched together a broad Arab coalition the way he has done. Mr. Trump has his shortcomings, and even he wonders if he will get into heaven, but he is a leader who bestrides the world scene like no other.

Third, Benjamin Netanyahu has cemented his place in the history of the Jewish people. He has his flaws and has made his share of costly mistakes, but the same can be said of ancient leaders like Samson and David as well as modern heroes like David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan. Mr. Netanyahu imposed his leadership on a country that yearned to reject him, brought order to an unruly coalition, and combined flexibility of means with steadfastness of purpose to bring Israel’s greatest and most harrowing war to a triumphant conclusion.

Fourth, despite Mr. Trump’s optimism, the Middle East hasn’t yet entered an era of peace. At the summit in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, communiqués will be signed, but the core cause of the conflict hasn’t been and perhaps can’t be resolved. The existence of a Jewish state in the predominantly Muslim Middle East presents an unendurable civilizational and religious affront to so much of the region’s population that Israel has had to become an armed camp to survive. And the Israel-Palestinian conflict is far from the only one in the Middle East. Ethnic and religious tensions have ripped Syria and Lebanon apart. Jihadist ideology is resurgent in much of the region. Even so-called moderate Islamism, as in Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Turkey, refuses to repudiate groups like Hamas.

Fifth, while the Gaza accords are President Trump’s most spectacular triumph to date, his biggest international challenges lie ahead. Hamas (like its backers in Iran) was and is a nihilistic force. It was the enemy of every Arab government in the Middle East. It had no positive program for the people it ruled, and its political goals were utterly impractical. Its tactics were as revolting as its methods were brutal. That a movement so deranged and misguided could command such wide support among the world’s restless youth reflects in part the careless sentimentalism of people whose genuine concern for the Palestinians blinded them to the cynical and bloodthirsty duplicity of Hamas. And of course the virus of antisemitism, to which half-educated minds seem peculiarly vulnerable, had its part to play. But the capacity to incite Greta Thunberg to join a flotilla isn’t real international power.

Mr. Trump’s triumph over Hamas came from his ability to organize a coalition of realists against the pretensions of fantasists. The Gulf Arabs want stability in the region so they can develop their economies and attract international investment without the perpetual upheaval and chaos on which Hamas thrives. They also want Hamas to suffer the kind of crushing defeat that would reduce its ideological appeal among their own citizens. Israel wants security for its people. The Europeans want an end to a war that agitated their immigrant populations and increased the risk of domestic terror.

Mr. Trump’s genius was to find a framework within which these different powers with their different priorities could work together toward their common goal. It is a real accomplishment and deserves the world’s gratitude and respect.

But the next steps will be harder. The Russian and Chinese governments, even when misguided, have a rationality and consistency that Hamas never did. Hamas dug tunnels. Russia and China build nuclear weapons.

The skill, flexibility and courage that Mr. Trump demonstrated in his campaign against Hamas will stand him in good stead in the competition with Russia and China. But it remains to be seen whether this president and the country he leads are ready for the sterner tests to come.


The disrupter in chief

  The Disrupter in Chief Gets Transformational Results at Home and Abroad No president has ever delivered so much so quickly. But Trump’s bi...