In my August 1, blog post, I wondered if Donald Trump’s second term was “Topping Out”? The President looked like the King of the Hill. The Stock Market hitting new highs and tariff-induced deals seemed to promise a manufacturing boom that would take us to untold prosperity, or at least that’s what Trump endlessly told us.

The passage of the Great Big Beautiful Bill, which allows businesses to write off capital investments immediately, is expected to contribute to the upcoming boom. Trump trumpeted his imminent settling of the world’s wars. What’s not to like? I warned of shoals ahead. One problem is that Trump has never had Reagan’s widespread appeal:

The cornerstone of Trump’s economic policy is his ability to use tariffs as a bludgeon to extract concessions from the rest of the world and force American businesses to plead their cases on bended knee, some even giving the Government an ownership stake. The world awaited Trump’s next action.

Yet, the majority of the tariffs had already been deemed illegal by two courts. The appeals court has upheld those verdicts, and we’re awaiting the Supreme Court’s final decision after just hearing oral arguments. If the High Court had only wanted to nullify the tariffs imposed under the single subject law, it could have refused to take the case. That action would’ve avoided prolonging the pain while ending most tariffs.

It’s too horrifying to think that the court wants to take the power to tax away from Congress and award it to the President, so it may wish to clarify how narrow the executive power is in this area, defining what actually constitutes an emergency, setting limits as to the time before you have to go to Congress. The bludgeon may become a twig, and Trump’s economic policy, domestic and foreign, evaporates.

While the President has had some success in fostering peace in some places, the two most significant areas of conflict, Israel and Ukraine, have received vastly different responses from Trump.

Both featured an unprovoked attack seeking to destroy these states ultimately. Israel and Ukraine seek to embrace Western values, while Russia and Hamas profess the opposite. Both Ukraine and Israel have waged truly brave and intelligent innovative wars, much to the shock of their enemies. America should know what the right side is to support, given our values.

While Israel has received the utmost Trump administration support, including direct defensive support and the bombing of a common enemy, Iran, the U.S. only provides arms bought and paid for by others and intermittent intelligence to Ukraine. Trump fetes Israel’s Netenyhu, but treats Ukraine’s Zelensky like a pariah.

Given the similarities of the two wars, what accounts for Trump’s differing positions? The administration, and even the special envoys, are mostly the same. The scientific method seeks to isolate and identify a single, distinct factor that explains a phenomenon.

Vice President Vance’s distaste for Ukraine is hardly a secret, given his part in humiliating Zelensky in the Oval Office. His and his supporters’ views dominate the administration of Ukraine policy. The same people are present in discussions of Middle East policy, but with two notable additions: Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, both Orthodox Jews, have also taken part in this area. During the previous Trump administration, they played a significant role in facilitating the Abraham Accords, arguably one of Trump’s most notable foreign policy achievements.

J.D. Vance and his  “New Right” associates may not be any more keen on Jews than they are on Ukrainians, but probably sense in this case he’d be challenging Trump’s family. Historically, leaders have tended to trust their families more than outsiders. In the Middle East, that trust led to success. J.D. isn’t about to challenge Jared in the Middle East, where the President’s son-in-law has strong relationships and knowledge.

Except for the Middle East, V.P. Vance, and the new right’s dim view of foreign military action, Western Europe and Ukraine, as well as free trade and immigration, have held sway under the present administration. However, even the perception of success at closing the border to illegals is being undermined by what appears to be overzealous enforcement.

Getting rid of bad people who entered illegally has broad support, but most Americans know and like someone who came from somewhere else, who may or may not be here legally. Good neighbors or valued business associates, we are loath to lose them. At a time when we need more people, why are we threatening those who are already here, contributing to our community?

The quality of advice a president receives matters. During Trump’s first term, the Federalist Society made recommendations on judicial appointments. Cabinet members, such as Attorney General Bill Barr and U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, weren’t afraid to tell the President things he might not want to hear. Secretary of Defense Jim Mathis even resigned over the Afghan policy. He left, but we stayed in Afghanistan throughout Trump’s first term.

This time around, except for the Middle East, no one seems able to restrain the President’s new Right tendencies. This lack is eroding the administration. Couldn’t someone have told Trump that giving Putin the red carpet treatment in Alaska without getting serious concessions from Russia would be seen as a humiliation to many Americans?  

With all the lawyers at the D.O.J. and the Whitehouse, didn’t anyone warn the President that his Tariff policies likely were at odds with the first article of the Constitution? Frightening good people who are illegal but are our friends and neighbors might seem mean to a nation of immigrants?

Almost everyone has heard Hans Christian Andersen’s tale of “The Emperor’s New Clothes ” for good reason. Sometimes we need to listen to things we don’t want to hear. If we don’t, we may end up naked before the multitude.

If Trump wants to arrest his second-term decline, he must find people, beyond his daughter and son-in-law, willing to give it to him straight, and he must set aside his ego long enough to listen. If not, prepare for even worse Republican election results than the dismal ones we just got, and Trump will be an unpopular lame-duck President.