Introduction: From MAGA to MASS – Reframing Trump’s Policy Approach Through Care Ethics

In the evolving landscape of American political governance, the transition from traditional policy approaches to what Dr. Kondrashov has termed “Making America Super Small” (MASS) represents more than a rhetorical shift from the familiar “Making America Great Again” (MAGA) slogan. This analysis examines how Trump’s executive orders and tariff policies fundamentally reshape America’s relationship with care—both domestically and internationally—creating what can be understood as a novel ideological framework that extends beyond established care paradigms.

While traditional political analysis has often viewed policy through economic, security, or rights-based lenses, this paper applies the framework of care ethics to reveal how Trump’s policies represent an emergent ideological position. Rather than fitting neatly within established care frameworks—from privatized conservative approaches to universal progressive models—the administration’s actions suggest what might be termed a “Predatory Care” ideology: one that actively weaponizes government authority to dismantle both public and private care structures while rhetorically claiming to protect American interests.

By examining the constellation of executive orders and tariff policies implemented by President Donald Trump, this analysis reveals a consistent pattern: traditional American values and institutions are invoked while simultaneously being undermined through implementation practices that contract rather than expand the architecture of care. From refugee policies to international trade relationships, from environmental regulations to civil service protections, the cumulative effect creates not merely a retrenchment of American engagement but a fundamental redefinition of America’s role in care provision—both at home and abroad.

This paper contends that understanding this shift requires moving beyond conventional political categorizations to recognize a new approach to governance—one that strategically leverages the state’s power not to reform care systems nor merely neglect them but to actively disrupt them in service of a nationalist vision that redefines care itself as a zero-sum competition between groups rather than a collaborative social good.

From MAGA to MASS: Analyzing Trump’s Executive Orders and Tariff Policies

Executive Orders and Policy Changes

Policy Change	Traditional American Value	“MAGA” Promise	Current Implementation (“MASS” Critique)
Suspending Refugee Program	America as humanitarian haven accepting 125,000 refugees annually	“Protecting borders from dangerous individuals”	Refugee admissions effectively halted, abandoning global humanitarian leadership
Suspending Asylum	Legal pathways for persecution victims enshrined in 1980 Refugee Act	“Stopping border invasion”	Dismantling asylum system established through international treaties
Withdrawing from WHO	Global health leadership with $700M+ annual contribution	“Ending unfair international commitments that rip us off”	America joins only a handful of non-members, reducing voice in global health policy
Renaming Gulf of Mexico	Respect for international naming conventions	“Honoring American greatness”	Unilaterally renaming international waters without consultation with neighboring countries
Gender Recognition Limitations	Federal recognition of gender diversity on passports since 2021	“Ending gender ideology”	Removing “X” gender marker options on federal documents, restricting to binary male/female
Dismantling Diversity Initiatives	Multiple executive orders since 1960s promoting equal opportunity	“Ending divisive DEI programs”	Dismantling entire federal DEI infrastructure built across multiple administrations
Ending Birthright Citizenship	14th Amendment guarantees since 1868: “All persons born… in the United States”	“Stopping birth tourism and anchor babies”	Attempting to override constitutional amendment without congressional action
Creating DOGE	Professional civil service separated from political patronage since 1883	“Cutting bloated government”	Department run by non-government figures with unprecedented authority to dismantle agencies
Easing Federal Employee Firing	Merit systems protection for federal workforce	“Draining the deep state swamp”	Schedule F classification that could remove protections from up to 50,000 federal employees
Freezing Foreign Aid	$40+ billion annual development assistance	“America First spending”	Immediate halt to development programs in dozens of countries, endangering ongoing projects
Cancelling Israeli Settler Sanctions	Sanctions on violent settler extremists implemented 2023	“Supporting our ally Israel”	Removing accountability mechanisms for documented human rights violations
National Emergency for Energy	Environmental review process under NEPA since 1970	“Energy dominance”	Fast-tracking fossil fuel projects while bypassing decades of environmental regulations
Paris Climate Withdrawal	Leadership in forming 195-country climate agreement	“Ending job-killing climate deals”	America now joins only Iran, Libya, and Yemen outside global climate consensus
Revoking EV Targets	50% EV sales goal by 2030	“Protecting American auto industry”	Removing market signals that automakers had already integrated into manufacturing plans
Rescinding 78 Biden-Era Orders	Policy continuity across administrations	“Repairing institutions”	Wholesale elimination of previous administration’s policy framework without case-by-case review
Halting Offshore Wind Leasing	Balanced energy portfolio development	“Protecting marine life and fishing industry”	Complete pause on renewable energy development while fast-tracking fossil fuels
Men Out of Women’s Sports	Equal protection under Title IX	“Protecting women’s sports”	Federal intervention in state and local athletic policies, threatening education funding
Ending Gender-Affirming Care	Medical autonomy and care access	“Protecting children”	Federal prohibition on healthcare procedures recommended by major medical associations
Designating English as Official Language	Multicultural heritage recognition	“Unifying the nation”	Revoking Executive Order 13166 requiring agencies to improve services for limited English speakers
10-to-1 Deregulation Initiative	Evidence-based regulatory framework	“Cutting red tape”	Arbitrary requirement to eliminate 10 existing regulations for each new one, regardless of merit
Withdrawal from UNHRC/UNRWA	Global human rights leadership since 1948	“Standing with Israel”	Cutting funding to Palestinian refugee agency serving 5.9 million refugees
Faith Office Establishment	Church-state separation tradition	“Religious freedom protection”	New White House office with mandate to reduce “burdens” on religious expression
Federal Institute Elimination	Professional development for civil servants	“Cutting waste”	Abolishing Federal Executive Institute that trained senior government executives
FCPA Enforcement Pause	Global anti-corruption leadership since 1977	“American business competitiveness”	180-day halt on enforcing anti-bribery laws for American companies operating overseas
Paper Straw Ban	Environmental stewardship	“Freedom of consumer choice”	Federal prohibition on paper straws in federal buildings, requirement for plastic straw availability

Executive orders can be found here https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/donald-trump/2025

Summaries of each order can be found here: https://www.hklaw.com/en/general-pages/trumps-2025-executive-orders-chart

Tariff and Trade Policies

Tariff Policy	Pre-Trump Standard	“MAGA” Promise	Current Implementation (“MASS” Critique)
Canada/Mexico Tariffs	Zero tariffs under NAFTA/CUSMA	“Getting better trade deals”	25% tariffs on $155B of goods from closest allies, violating spirit of CUSMA
Steel/Aluminum Tariffs	Free trade with allies	“Protecting American steel industry”	25% tariffs triggering retaliation and increased costs for American manufacturers
Reciprocal Tariffs	WTO-compliant trade policies	“Fair and reciprocal trade”	Threatened tariffs on all Canadian goods including CUSMA-compliant products
China Tariff Doubling	Strategic targeted tariffs	“Combating synthetic opioid supply chain”	Across-the-board increase from 10% to 20% on all Chinese imports
Tariff Exemption Manipulation	Stable trade relationships	“Leverage for border security cooperation”	Monthly review of tariff exemptions used as negotiating tool with allies
Timber/Lumber Investigation	Market-based trade in forest products	“Ensuring national security in timber supply”	Section 232 investigation treating lumber imports as national security threat
Impact on Global Trade	American leadership of rules-based trade system	“Making better deals”	Trade war spanning three continents with unprecedented tariff escalation

Trump  Tariff Tracker can be found here https://financialpost.com/news/economy/tariff-tracker-u-s-canada-trade-war-updates  

The MASS Critique: From “Making America Great Again” to “Making America Super Small”

The above tables present how critics view the transition from “Making America Great Again” (MAGA) to what they characterize as “Making America Super Small” (MASS) – contrasting traditional American values with the current implementation of these policies. The critique suggests these changes collectively:

1. Reduce global engagement:
   1. Withdrawal from WHO, Paris Climate Agreement, UN Human Rights Council
   1. Defunding UNRWA and international refugee programs
   1. Suspending Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement
   1. Imposing sanctions on International Criminal Court
2. Narrow American identity:
   1. Restricting gender recognition to binary classifications
   1. Designating English as official language
   1. Limiting birthright citizenship
   1. Dismantling diversity and inclusion initiatives across government
3. Prioritize unilateral action:
   1. Imposing tariffs without WTO procedures
   1. Unilaterally renaming geographic features (Gulf of Mexico)
   1. Withdrawing from multilateral agreements without replacement frameworks
   1. Pausing international anti-corruption enforcement
4. Reinterpret established norms:
   1. Executive reinterpretation of 14th Amendment citizenship clause
   1. Declaring national emergencies to bypass normal legislative processes
   1. Using tariffs as diplomatic leverage beyond trade concerns
   1. Establishing unprecedented government efficiency department with broad powers
5. Disrupt trade relationships:
   1. 25% tariffs on closest allies and neighbors
   1. Doubling tariffs on world’s second-largest economy
   1. Using national security justifications for routine trade goods
   1. Creating unpredictable trade environment with monthly tariff revisions
6. Increase economic isolation:
   1. Comprehensive trade barriers affecting global supply chains
   1. Targeting allied economies with punitive measures
   1. Triggering retaliatory tariffs on American exports
   1. Treating economic policy as zero-sum competition

The collective economic and diplomatic impact includes:

• Estimated $30-60 billion in additional costs for American consumers
• Retaliatory tariffs on $155+ billion of American exports
• Supply chain disruptions across multiple industries
• Market uncertainty affecting investment decisions
• Strained diplomatic relationships with traditional allies
• Reduced American influence in global institutions
• Diminished soft power and normative leadership

The “MASS” critique suggests these policies collectively result in:

• More isolation rather than engagement
• Anti-globalist positions rather than leadership
• Sovereignty prioritized over cooperation
• Shrinking American influence globally

The ultimate impact of these orders and tariffs will depend on:

• How they withstand judicial review and potential WTO challenges
• Implementation effectiveness across federal agencies
• Public and business community response
• Long-term effects on American domestic economy and international standing

Analysis of Trump’s Policies Through the Lens of Care Ideologies

Looking at the above tables, we can see how Trump’s executive orders and tariff policies represent a departure from traditional frameworks of care. While the Performative Way (Way 5) (Kondrashov, 2025) describes policies that claim to support equity while maintaining inequalities, Trump’s approach suggests something that could be characterized as a “Predatory Way” (Way 6) where government power is actively used to reshape relationships and undermine both collective and individual care systems.

Examining Key Elements of Ideology in Trump’s Policies:

1. Model of Social Welfare

• Traditional First Way would emphasize minimal state involvement and private solutions
• Trump’s Approach: Actively dismantles both public welfare systems AND threatens private sector welfare through tariffs that disrupt economic stability
• Example: Suspending refugee programs eliminates both government and private humanitarian pathways

2. Concept of Change

• Traditional Ways 1-5 view change as either evolutionary or systemic but oriented toward some form of societal benefit
• Trump’s Approach: Change appears aimed at disruption itself, rolling back established systems without clear replacement frameworks
• Example: “Rescinding 78 Biden-Era Orders” without case-by-case review suggests change for the sake of institutional disruption

3. Nature of Society

• Established Ways view society as either individualistic or collective, but still within a cohesive framework
• Trump’s Approach: Society is portrayed as fundamentally adversarial with emphasis on competition between groups rather than cooperation
• Example: The “Gulf of Mexico” renaming reflects an emphasis on national competition rather than international cooperation

4. Role of the State

• Performative Way would claim neutrality while maintaining advantages for elites
• Trump’s Approach: State power is wielded actively as a tool for disruption and leverage, not just maintenance of status quo
• Example: Using “monthly review of tariff exemptions” as negotiating leverage shows state power used as a coercive tool

5. Concept of Human Need

• Established Ways have differing views on needs but generally acknowledge some level of societal responsibility
• Trump’s Approach: Needs are reframed as threats or weaknesses within a competitive framework
• Example: The framing of refugee assistance as a “border invasion” redefines humanitarian needs as security threats

6. Theory of Justice

• Established Ways offer various approaches to fairness, from meritocracy to equity
• Trump’s Approach: Justice becomes conditional based on group membership and loyalty
• Example: Removing sanctions on Israeli settlers while imposing tariffs on allies demonstrates justice applied inconsistently based on alliance

7. Economic Model

• First Way would emphasize free markets with minimal intervention
• Trump’s Approach: Markets are manipulated through state power while claiming free market principles
• Example: Tariffs on allies directly contradict free market principles while still invoking market-based rhetoric

8. Implied Ameliorative Action

• Established Ways attempt to improve conditions through their respective approaches
• Trump’s Approach: “Improvement” is defined through disruption and realignment of power rather than addressing needs
• Example: The creation of DOGE focuses on dismantling agencies rather than improving their function

Looking at these elements collectively, Trump’s policies suggest an approach that goes beyond the Performative Way’s gap between rhetoric and implementation. Instead, they represent what might be called a “Predatory Way” where:

1. Care is redefined as protection of in-group interests against perceived threats
2. Government power is used to actively disrupt established care systems
3. Relationships between nations, groups, and individuals are reframed as zero-sum competitions
4. Traditional values from multiple Ways are selectively invoked to justify contradictory policies
5. The state’s role shifts from either supporting or neglecting care to actively dismantling care structures

This approach creates “Making America Super Small” – a contraction of care systems that extends beyond performative inadequacy to active deconstruction of care frameworks, regardless of whether they were public or private, national or international.

Trump’s policies and executive orders, as outlined in the table, appear to transition from a “Performative Way” (which pretends to provide care but actually undermines it) to a more “Predatory Way” (which actively dismantles care structures). Below is an analysis using the Ways of Care:

Way 1: Privatized Care (Minimal Government Involvement)

• This approach is about individuals and private institutions providing care, with minimal government role.
• Trump’s policies contradict this in some ways, as tariffs and restrictions on trade interfere with free-market principles.
• Examples:
  • Tariffs on Canada/Mexico disrupt businesses that previously relied on NAFTA/CUSMA.
  • Revoking EV Targets removes market-based signals that automakers were using to transition to cleaner energy.

Analysis: While Trump’s rhetoric promotes free-market capitalism, his use of tariffs and interventionist economic policies contradicts a purely privatized model.

Way 2: Provisional Care (Limited Welfare, State as a Stabilizer)

• This approach sees government as a tool for stability—helping when necessary but avoiding broad interventions.
• Trump’s policies erode this model by dismantling existing government supports.
• Examples:
  • Ending Birthright Citizenship attempts to undo a long-standing institutional guarantee.
  • Withdrawing from WHO & UNHRC removes America from stabilizing international organizations.
  • Dismantling DEI programs disrupts initiatives that stabilize marginalized communities.

Analysis: These policies remove stability-oriented government interventions, suggesting a shift away from the institutional model.

Way 3: Pragmatic Care (Comprehensive Government Welfare)

• This model supports widespread government intervention to provide care universally.
• Trump’s policies actively oppose this model.
• Examples:
  • Suspending refugee programs and asylum removes pathways for humanitarian assistance.
  • Rescinding 78 Biden-era orders eliminates structural supports without case-by-case review.
  • Halting offshore wind leasing stops clean energy development, affecting long-term economic and environmental sustainability.

Analysis: Trump’s policies dismantle rather than expand universal care.

Way 4: Progressive Care (Proactive Government Action for Equity)

• This model involves systemic change to ensure fairness and equity.
• Trump’s policies directly contradict this, often reinforcing existing power structures.
• Examples:
  • Men Out of Women’s Sports and Ending Gender-Affirming Care enforce rigid social norms.
  • Faith Office Establishment and Federal Institute Elimination prioritize conservative ideological control.
  • National Emergency for Energy accelerates fossil fuel projects instead of green transitions.

Analysis: The shift here is not toward transformation but regression, reinforcing inequality instead of addressing it.

Way 5: Performative Care (Illusion of Support Without Real Change)

• This is where government claims to help but implements policies that do the opposite.
• Many Trump policies fit this category, offering rhetoric that disguises harmful impacts.
• Examples:
  • Tariff manipulations are framed as “protecting American workers” but increase costs for businesses and consumers.
  • “Draining the Swamp” (Easing Federal Employee Firing) is presented as cutting bureaucracy but actually weakens civil service protections.
  • “Protecting Children” by ending gender-affirming care claims to safeguard youth but removes medical autonomy.

Analysis: Trump’s use of slogans like “America First” masks policies that often harm American workers and industries.

Way 6: Predatory Care (Weaponizing Government to Destroy Care)

• This is an emerging category where government is used to actively dismantle relationships and institutions of care.
• Trump’s policies increasingly fit this description as they move beyond performative gestures to direct harm.
• Examples:
  • Sanctions removal for Israeli settlers supports extremist groups by lifting accountability.
  • Trade war escalation isolates America economically.
  • Creating DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) gives political appointees unchecked power to dismantle agencies.
  • 10-to-1 Deregulation Initiative eliminates regulations regardless of their function.

Analysis: These policies actively use government power to weaken protections, disrupt care networks, and shift control to political allies.

Conclusion: Beyond Performative Care – The Implications of a Predatory Approach

The trajectory from MAGA to MASS represents more than a political rebranding; it demonstrates the emergence of a governance philosophy that transcends the limitations of the “Performative Way” (Way 5) into what we have identified as the “Predatory Way” (Way 6). This transition is marked not merely by the gap between rhetoric and implementation that characterizes performative care, but by the deliberate use of government power to dismantle care structures while simultaneously claiming to strengthen them.

The implications of this shift extend far beyond policy outcomes to reshape fundamental assumptions about America’s role in the world and the nature of governance itself. When refugee assistance is reframed as a security threat, when international cooperation is portrayed as exploitation, when diversity initiatives are positioned as divisive rather than inclusive, and when environmental protections are cast as economic hindrances, we witness not just policy disagreements but a paradigmatic reconfiguration of how care is conceptualized in the American context.

This predatory approach to care carries profound consequences for both domestic and international relations. Domestically, it erodes trust in institutions and fragments social cohesion by positioning different groups in competition for seemingly scarce resources and recognition. Internationally, it undermines America’s traditional leadership role in establishing norms and standards, replacing collaborative frameworks with transactional relationships defined primarily by power dynamics rather than shared values.

Most significantly, the transition to this predatory care model represents a dangerous precedent in how government authority can be wielded—not just to neglect vulnerable populations but to actively target the systems designed to support them. By understanding this shift through the lens of care ethics, we gain crucial insight into both its appeal to certain constituencies and its threat to long-established American values of compassion, cooperation, and collective welfare.

As we navigate this ideological transition, the challenge before American democracy is not merely to debate specific policies but to recognize and respond to this fundamental reorientation of governance philosophy—one that threatens to transform America from a global leader in establishing care frameworks to an agent of their dismantlement. The ultimate question is whether American democratic institutions can withstand this transformation or whether they will be irrevocably reshaped by this new predatory approach to care.

References

Holland & Knight. (2025). Trump’s 2025 executive orders. Retrieved from https://www.hklaw.com/en/general-pages/trumps-2025-executive-orders-chart

Kondrashov, O. (2025). The architecture of care: Ideological ways. Lessons from Canadian social welfare (1st ed.). DROKACADEMY.

Switzer, J. (n.d.). Tariff tracker: Confused by the trade war? Here’s where things stand today. Financial Post. Retrieved from https://financialpost.com/news/economy/tariff-tracker-u-s-canada-trade-war-updates

Trump, D. J. (2025). Executive orders (EO 14147–EO 14235). Federal Register. Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/donald-trump/2025