By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump administration’s governance is characterized by a pattern of significant errors, ranging from the erroneous targeting of Harvard University with extreme demands to the wrongful deportation of Kilmar Ábrego García. These mistakes, often attributed to “administrative errors,” are frequently followed by attempts to either conceal them through authoritarian tactics or deflect blame. Examples include the improper termination notices sent to Ukrainian refugees and the incorrect self-deportation email sent to a U.S. citizen. This consistent pattern of blunders, rather than incompetence, suggests a deliberate strategy of using errors to mask or justify controversial policies.
Read the original article here
We’ve never seen a more error-prone, incompetent presidency. The sheer volume of blunders in such a short timeframe is staggering. From ill-advised threats against prestigious institutions to wrongful deportations and the issuance of false notices—even to American citizens—the administration’s actions are marked by a disturbing pattern of missteps. These aren’t simple mistakes; they represent a chaotic governance style that critics rightly call “rule by error.”
We’ve never seen a more error-prone, incompetent presidency, and the consequences are far-reaching. The frequent backpedaling and retractions following these missteps further highlight the administration’s apparent lack of preparedness and foresight. This constant reactive approach suggests a deep-seated inability to effectively anticipate and mitigate the consequences of its own decisions. Public opinion reflects this perceived incompetence, with approval ratings plummeting to historic lows.
We’ve never seen a more error-prone, incompetent presidency, and the claims of past achievements ring hollow in the face of current reality. The administration’s repeated failures to effectively manage even basic governmental functions raise serious concerns about its capacity to address the complex challenges facing the nation. The very notion that these errors are accidental is hard to reconcile with the sheer number and severity of the mistakes.
We’ve never seen a more error-prone, incompetent presidency, and the claim that these missteps are merely “errors” is increasingly difficult to sustain. The pattern of authoritarian overreach followed by retraction when challenged suggests a more calculated strategy, one that uses blunders as a tool to test boundaries and push the limits of power. This raises serious concerns about the nature of the administration’s governance and its long-term implications.
We’ve never seen a more error-prone, incompetent presidency, and the contrast with past administrations is striking. Bureaucracies, while often slow, generally operate with a degree of certainty and consistency, built on established processes and checks and balances. This administration, however, operates with a seemingly casual disregard for established procedures and protocols, preferring improvisation over careful planning.
We’ve never seen a more error-prone, incompetent presidency, and the lack of accountability is particularly alarming. The administration’s consistent refusal to acknowledge or rectify its mistakes, coupled with a lack of meaningful consequences, only serves to embolden further missteps. This pattern creates a cycle of repeated errors with no mechanism for self-correction, posing a serious threat to the stability and effectiveness of government.
We’ve never seen a more error-prone, incompetent presidency, and some argue that the incompetence itself might be a strategic maneuver. The theory posits that the administration’s errors and overreaches are part of a larger plan to dismantle established institutions and norms. The repeated blunders, while seemingly chaotic, may in fact be calculated moves toward a pre-determined goal. This cynical perspective raises profound questions about the administration’s true intentions.
We’ve never seen a more error-prone, incompetent presidency, and the media’s response to these events is also under scrutiny. Allegations of “sanitizing” or downplaying the severity of the administration’s actions raise concerns about journalistic responsibility and the integrity of information presented to the public. A failure to accurately and thoroughly report on these events only serves to exacerbate the problem and further erode public trust.
We’ve never seen a more error-prone, incompetent presidency, and the long-term consequences remain to be seen. The cumulative effect of so many errors and missteps raises serious questions about the nation’s future. The very foundations of governance seem to be under attack, with the rule of law potentially being replaced by arbitrary decisions and unpredictable actions.
We’ve never seen a more error-prone, incompetent presidency, and the sense of crisis is palpable. The feeling that time itself is distorted, that 100 days feels like an eternity, reflects the overwhelming anxiety caused by this administration’s seemingly unrelenting string of failures. The consequences extend far beyond simple policy errors; they undermine the public’s faith in the government and its ability to effectively manage the nation’s affairs. This deep-seated distrust presents a profound challenge to the democratic process.