The Bully's Pulpit Comes Home
We know about the TACO principle abroad. What about on American soil?
Last week the Financial Times’ Gideon Rachman argued that the TACO principle — Trump Always Chickens Out — applies not only to how Trump handles trade negotiations, but to his foreign policy more generally. Rachman concluded, “Trump enjoys issuing blood-curdling threats of the use of force. But he very rarely follows through…. The places that need to worry are those that look vulnerable or unlikely to fight back.”
To back up that column, Rachman cited a recent paper by Jeremy Shapiro, the European Council on Foreign Relations research director, entitled “The bully’s pulpit: Finding patterns in Trump’s use of military force.” Shapiro’s precis:
Commentators frequently describe Trump as unpredictable, but looking at the data on his threats and uses of force, a pattern emerges. Trump uses threats and force much like a playground bully: while large and outwardly powerful, he actually fears the use of force in any situation even vaguely resembling a fair fight. For the bully, threats are for the purpose of intimidation rather than a prelude to violence. Actual violence only occurs against much weaker foes that have no hope of striking back….
From the analysis, three core conclusions emerge: first, that Trump was more likely to follow through with threats when they were tied to a specific provocation and had low escalation risk; second, that threats against nuclear or conventionally strong states were rarely acted upon and largely served rhetorical purposes; and third, the most extreme or theatrical threats tended to be tools of political signaling rather than precursors to real military action. The idea of starting involvement in any long-term or risky military operation seems an anathema to him.
As someone who has argued that Trump’s attempts to employ the madman gambit don’t really work. Shapiro’s argument is convincing and unsurprising. What the hard-working staff here at Drezner’s World is trying to suss out, however, is how Shapiro’s argument plays out in the city of Los Angeles. Because there are contradictory incentives at play here.
You can read a tick-tock of how the situation in Los Angeles escalated in the New York Times. Or you can read the Associated Press account below:
Another 2,000 National Guard troops along with 700 Marines are headed to Los Angeles on orders Monday from President Donald Trump, escalating a military presence local officials and Gov. Gavin Newsom don’t want and the police chief says creates logistical challenges for safely handling protests.
An initial 2,000 Guard troops ordered by Trump started arriving Sunday, which saw the most violence during three days of protests driven by anger over Trump’s stepped-up enforcement of immigration laws that critics say are breaking apart migrant families.
Monday’s demonstrations were was far less raucous, with thousands peacefully attending a rally at City Hall and hundreds protesting outside a federal complex that includes a detention center where some immigrants are being held following workplace raids across the city.
Trump has described Los Angeles in dire terms that Mayor Karen Bass and Newsom say are nowhere close to the truth. They say he is putting public safety at risk by adding military personnel even though police say they don’t need the help.
Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell said in a statement he was confident in the police department’s ability to handle large-scale demonstrations and that the Marines’ arrival without coordinating with the police department presented a “significant logistical and operational challenge” for them.
There is ample evidence that: a) federal officials have been behaving in a bellicose manner that is escalating tensions; b) state and local officials do not want the National Guard activated or the U.S. military deployed in LA; c) most of the protests have been peaceful; and d) some of the protestors have been less peaceful.
Think I’m exaggerating about federal overreach? Consider this local story:
Or consider this difference in characterization between Donald Trump and the Los Angeles Police Department:
To use Shapiro’s language, the question is whether Trump will view the situation in Los Angeles as an instance of low escalation risk and political signaling — or a situation that could escalate and tie up military assets for longer than Trump would like.
[Wait a minute: you’re not going to rant about how this is not supposed to happen in America?!—ed. There are plenty of commentators who can and will do that. But the U.S. began undergoing illiberal regime change a hundred days ago and I would rather focus on how this could play out.]
An awful lot of commentators believe that Trump has been savoring this opportunity to escalate. Here’s the Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf:
On X, many of his supporters are gleeful about the prospect of a clash that ends in bloodied leftists wearing handcuffs and facing felonies. Even setting aside the most negatively polarized segment of the Republican base, Trump has a strong incentive to redirect public attention away from his feud with Elon Musk, his underwater approval rating on the economy, and the fight over a spending bill that divides his coalition, and toward immigration enforcement, an issue on which his approval rating is still positive. What’s more, this clash concerns deportation actions that are apparently lawful, as opposed to Trump’s unconstitutional deportations of foreigners to a Salvadoran prison.
The Washington Post’s Max Boot correctly observes that looking at Trump’s first-term approach towards civil disobedience might not be a great guide to his behavior now, for the simple reason that this time around his staff is more quiescent:
This is hardly the first time that Trump has been eager to deploy troops to city streets. He tried to do so during the George Floyd protests in 2020. Trump reportedly urged Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper to “crack their skulls” and asked whether troops could shoot protesters in the legs. Esper and Milley resolutely refused to countenance such state violence or even to deploy active-duty troops. The National Guard did deploy but generally acted with appropriate restraint.
That history helps explain why Trump was so eager this time to appoint officials he no doubt viewed as more compliant. He fired the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that he inherited from the Biden administration and brought out of retirement a three-star officer, Dan Caine, whom he apparently believed (probably mistakenly) would be loyal to him personally. And for defense secretary, Trump chose Fox News host Pete Hegseth, who made clear during his confirmation hearings that he would have no objection in principle to using force against protesters….
In dealing with the Los Angeles protests, Hegseth appears to be acting as an accelerator, rather than a brake, on the president’s worst instincts. Perhaps desperate to get back in Trump’s good graces, the defense secretary tweeted on Saturday that not only was he “mobilizing the National Guard IMMEDIATELY” but that, “if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert.”
Hegseth appears all too willing to put troops in a situation they should not be in, where they risk becoming political pawns in the administration’s attempt to foment a crisis that will enable the president to assert even greater executive power
What is particularly disturbing is that the administration’s pell-mell approach to deploying troops in Los Angeles almost guarantees additional escalation. As the AP reported:
The Pentagon was scrambling Monday to establish rules to guide U.S. Marines who could be faced with the rare and difficult prospect of using force against citizens on American soil, now that the Trump administration is deploying active duty troops to the immigration raid protests in Los Angeles….
The forces have been trained in deescalation, crowd control and standing rules for the use of force, Northern Command said.
But the use of the active duty forces still raises difficult questions….
According to a U.S. official, troops will be armed with their normal service weapons but will not be carrying tear gas. They also will have protective equipment such as helmets, shields and gas masks.
This seems like a surefire recipe for incompetent escalation1 — and a situation in which president Trump is interested in political symbolism and playing to his base.
And yet I find myself agreeing with Jamelle Bouie:
I personally do not think the administration is actually prepared for what happens if they are facing mass protests in every major city in the country.
I simply do not understand those of you who look at the white house and say to yourselves, “these are hyper competent people who are executing a sophisticated plan with high odds for success.”
What I see is a White House whose ambitions outstrip its resources, who did not count on facing mass resistance, and which is scrambling to escalate the situation in hopes that a display of force will make people shut up.
The mistake in analyzing this crisis is presuming that the Trump administration is the only actor with agency in this situation. Protestors — and potential protestors — also hold some cards.
If protestors maintain discipline, and if the protests spread, then the TACO logic will start to kick in. Trump might have comparatively stronger political support for his immigration policies. The media attention on Kilmar Abrego Garcia hurt Trump’s standing, however, as G. Elliott Morris demonstrated on his Substack. Imagine what the press coverage of widespread attempts to use military force to suppress democratic protests inside the United States will look like.
I have no doubt that if Stephen Miller was the president, the administration would continue to escalate. He might persuade Trump to act tough domestically precisely to counteract the TACO principle abroad. But I am slightly more inclined to put money on Trump’s cowardice.
Developing…
For fans of Andor: yes, these events echo the run-up to the Ghorman massacre depicted this season.
I hope for his cowardice, but I think Donald Trump *wants* his own Kent State.
These are spontaneous protests, basically in self-defense. That is, it is an understandable reaction to long-standing Trump provocations. Remember, Trump made a big display of sending people to a hell hole in El Salvador, without determining whether they were eligible for deportation. So, there may be a desperation underlying the justifiable anger here. Republicans have spent a lot of time and money sending the message to Hispanics that they are not only targets, but that their lives don't matter. In Uvalde, government sat on its hands while babies were slaughtered. Then, Texas buried the fault of law enforcement. Trump and Republicans have deliberately cultivated a lot of rage here.
Basically, this protest is going to spin out of control just as stage managed by Trump, unless leadership emerges to use the power of protest strategically. Now, the provacators and those who are excited may be engaging in the protest drama for its own sake. I mean, at this point, is ICE even arresting people? Or has it now devolved into performance on both sides?
I suggest that labor unions can step up and provide the leadership. Targeted strikes in businesses subject to the Trump spectacles. Solidarity from other unions across the US will make Trump the bad guy. This can also create the kind of pressure that will cause Trump to back down. Hit his business donors' bottom lines. Watch them push him to back down, just like Wall Street pushed him to back off tariffs.
Or, another good counter-move is for everyone to go home. Because Trump can't win if no one plays his games.