Balancing easy victories with difficult challenges is a defining characteristic of political life. Election campaign pledges often create outsized expectations, putting victorious candidates in a position where they must deliver on promises that are often challenging to actualize. Americans, renowned for their impatience, look for quick wins as a sign of progress while they wait for the realization of grander policy visions. This leaves the elected official with no choice but to prioritize easy victories, which usually come in the form of symbolic nomenclature changes, as a way to assuage public pressure.
Take, for example, the Trump administration’s actions within the first 48 hours of its second term. Most of the early actions are symbolic, aimed at tickling the nationalistic sentiments of ‘America First’ supporters. Language became the tool of choice to signal this change with the Gulf of Mexico now referred to as the ‘Gulf of America,’ Denali as ‘Mount McKinley,’ and the term ‘aliens’ used for foreign nationals.
The administration’s desire to annex Greenland also belongs in this category of easy victories. Threatening a small Scandinavian country, with a population nearer to that of New York City, over the territory of Greenland is a classic example of low-cost jingoism. Tackling more difficult challenges is delayed in favor of such easier wins.
The newly installed president not only sought to fulfill his campaign promises in these initial stages but also made a significant, controversial decision affecting the life of his former national security adviser, John Bolton. Bolton has lived under threat of death from the Iranian government for half a decade following his advisory role in the assassination of Qassem Suleimani, the powerful head of Iran’s Quds Force. His life is now at increased risk after President Trump’s decision to end his Secret Service protection.
At first glance, Trump’s decision might appear as a cost-saving measure. According to him, the period of Secret Service protection for Bolton was sufficient and an extension would result in needless spending. However, Batman unpacked, it becomes clear that the decision is, to a significant extent, personal retribution.
In reality, Bolton’s life is endangered due to an action Trump implemented—namely, the assassination of Suleimani. Although it was Bolton who advised him to take this action, the decision and responsibility ultimately lay with Trump. He has repeatedly cited this event as a significant achievement during his tenure, causing many to question why he wouldn’t maintain security for the man who offered the critical advice.
The previous administration, under Biden, prioritized Bolton’s safety despite their ideological differences. Bolton, known for his harsh criticism of Biden’s foreign policy, was nonetheless shielded from his Iranian threats by Biden’s decision to maintain his Secret Service protection. One might expect that Trump would acknowledge his part in endangering Bolton’s life and hence maintain the protection.
Such expectations, however, were misguided as Trump decided to let Bolton fend for himself. The timing of the decision—coming on the very first day of his new term—raises questions about his priorities and the degree to which he might let personal prejudices affect national security decisions.
The reality is that Trump is not concerned about fiscal responsibility or the charges of maintaining a Secret Service detail—as he has called for the total elimination of the debt ceiling. His decision was not driven by policy disagreements—he did not worry about Bolton’s warmongering tendencies when he appointed him. The reality is far simpler: He reviles Bolton because Bolton criticizes him freely and publicly.
Trump’s punitive actions towards Bolton echo his treatment of other individuals who have crossed him. He did the same with Liz Cheney, attempting to disguise a personal vendetta as a strategic policy difference. An ironic twist to this pattern is Trump’s accusation that Bolton mishandled classified information—a charge with little credibility given Trump’s own track record.
Stripping Bolton of his secret service protection seems to be another attempt by Trump to silence him. As the efforts from the Justice Department failed to quash his criticism, Trump probably assumed that the looming threat from Iran might finally manage to do what his administration couldn’t. This assumption, however, is a gross miscalculation.
Ending the protection for Bolton sends a disconcerting message to future government insiders. It implies that their safety isn’t a guarantee, and that their lives could become bargaining chips in political battles. This decision could deter capable individuals from joining governmental roles, where they could positively contribute to national progress.
The reality facing government insiders is disheartening. It’s clear that their potential lives are less about the danger of foreign adversaries and more about becoming enemies of Trump. This reality was made even more stark when, on the same day as Bolton lost his protection, Trump pardoned the instigators of the January 6 insurrection.
The president’s abuse of presidential authority for personal vendettas represents a demoralizing shift in the traditional role of these positions. The events of recent days have unveiled a grim reality: one’s standing with President Trump seems to be the most important factor in receiving executive protection, or the lack thereof. This mockery of authority and disregard for duty is a marked departure from the principles which have traditionally guided statecraft.
The administration’s decision leaves a pressing question hanging in the balance: How would the President react if Iran was indeed successful in their vengeance against Bolton? The weight of such an event, should it transpire, would fall heavily on the administration; hence, it is believed that Trump is leveraging a dangerous possibility to gratify his personal animosities.