Trust is not free

Disruption creates costs that will need to be rebuilt

From a political perspective, 2025 has been a very disruptive year, and anyone who doesn’t expect it to continue to be so needs to re-evaluate their method of reasoning. It takes some extreme optimism to have no expectation that President Trump wants to continue the patterns observed so far. You might rationally hope for some moderation, a reduction in pace. But, as for stopping this pattern, only a change in public opinion so drastic as to overcome the denial in broad display, carries any rational belief that Trump, the Republicans, or Americans overall will put an end to these disruptions; and even then it’s uncertain.

So far I’ve only described these as disruptions, which I expect many might read as understating things. But before I state the stronger views, I’d like to provide the context for those views. In some cases, disruption can be good, this is not such a case. Why is this case not such? The problems could be stated in many ways, and many of those are valid, but I’ll frame it in terms of trust and organization, arguing that these current disruptions, exemplified by tariff policies and the actions of the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), are critically undermining both international and domestic trust and organizational structures, with potentially irreversible consequences.

In both cases, there are real short-term effects that will come from this, and long-term effects that will come if these policies are sustained. But in addition, and most importantly, there’s long-term effects that aren’t reversible.

At Amazon, there’s a concept, two-way door decisions that the company uses to recognize those decisions that you can act on with less reflection, because you can always undo them. Decisions that are not two-way door decisions, you can’t reverse these. Trump is treating tariffs as two-way doors, when they are far from it. And DOGE, I think, has not even thought about this. But the effects are just as real, despite the ignorance of their implementers.

Tariffs, Political Posturing, and Enduring Damage for International Trust

Organizations come in many shapes and sizes. We have nuclear families, larger families, cooperatives, corporations, governments. We also have international organizations. Multiple things make organizations strong. Sometimes it’s the rules and procedures that establish expectations or enable efficiency. But often, it’s the trust shared in the organization that contributes to their strength and value. This is very true of international organizations, both those that are formal and have a structure, and the non-formalized interactions between nations and their peoples. The sustained implementation of disruptive tariff policies directly erodes this trust, which is foundational to all forms of international organization and cooperation.

The long-term problem with all the back and forth on tariffs is the degree that it undermines the loose trust that makes international cooperation work. Even if/when they are reversed, the disruption to trust will remain. Disrupting those networks of trust only makes sense if we have no intent to use them. Arguing that we shouldn’t want to use those networks is the most consistent line of argument for those who support tariffs, but it’s not a very strong one. It requires believing that we’d be better off fractionated into smaller groups. Skepticism on whether China is worth trusting doesn’t do much to justify the same for Canada and Mexico.

But does that line of argument really matter? In the short term what policy we end up with is going to be the whim of one person. Is that line of argument really the one that influences actions? The record doesn’t support that. Sure, there’s something you can use to support it, but there’s just as many contradictions. The record is more supportive of influences that relate to power and control. In terms of words, it’s framed in terms of America’s power, but in terms of actions, it’s aligned with Trump’s ego and ego projection. You can’t project power as a nation without a coherent view, and coherency is lacking, as evidenced by the constant reversals.

Trump would describe this as leverage, or deal-making, but since there’s no coherent end point, the real point is about putting him at the center. A lot of that is pure ego, but let’s also note that a lot of it comes from the way his supporters engage with that image, and his assumptions about how others engage with that image.

It’s common to look at the reversals as reactions to public opinion. But those reactions are limited. When the stock market tanks, his first instinct is to blame it on a conspiracy. When poll numbers tank, likewise, blame it on fake news.

Those reversals though, I’d argue, aren't just rooted in the reactions. I’d make the case that it’s rooted just as much in a strategy of power projection. Conventional wisdom says that staying the course projects power, but that only applies to the interests of the country. The US looks weak to flip-flop back and forth, but Trump looks more powerful when he can flip-flop without personal consequences. The ship may look out of control, as there’s a madman at the rudder, but it’s clear which madman is in control of the rudder, and that he can run you down at will.

If this was about America, these flip-flops would be paired with important improvements for America. But they aren’t. The only consistent pairing is Trump’s relationship with some other leader. Either a sign of groveling, or some statement of mutual personal respect (for example between Putin and Trump).

This does nothing to improve international trust. Not only are those statements not honest or real, but primarily manipulations of Trump’s ego, but a nation's trust must be based upon something deeper than individual leaders. Unless you want a lifetime dictator, it has to be rooted in the people, culture, laws, and general organization of a nation. Demonstrating that the actions of the US aren’t rooted in that does immediate and long-term harm to international trust.

Misunderstanding Bureaucracy and Undervaluing Organization

In the realm of government, DOGE seems to be progressing from either the view that all bureaucracy is bad (it’s not), or that it’s easy to recover from dismantling it. Bureaucracy is often used as nearly a curse word, much like 'overhead' can be in corporations, but in reality, bureaucracy—or structured organization—is not an evil of its own. Effective organizations, whether public or private, rely on established processes and roles to function; the challenge lies in ensuring these structures serve their purpose efficiently, rather than becoming impediments. An effective organization is a source of value. What we really dislike is bad bureaucracy, and because bureaucracy is so hard to get right, we have all experienced examples of bad bureaucracy. But if you want something better, you have to provide an alternative.

Remember, bureaucracy is another name for organization, and lack of organization isn’t an alternative to bad bureaucracy. At best you hope that dismantling an established organization will allow something else to organically emerge as a replacement. That can seem attractive when you don’t understand the organization or the problems it needs to solve. So much easier than learning isn’t it?

But applying that as blind hope to an organization you don’t understand is arrogant, and probably going to fail. Besides, if you don’t understand an organization, how do you really know it’s bad? The inherent challenges may be difficult, and what it really needs is to move from a low level of effectiveness to a higher order of effectiveness. You don’t get there by starting over.

How 'Abundance' Fosters Trust and Strengthens Organization

The preceding discussion highlights a trajectory of eroding trust internationally and destabilizing organizational structures domestically. Faced with these destructive trends, simply critiquing is insufficient; exploring alternative, constructive frameworks for societal advancement becomes critical. So, what is a better structure for organization? That’s a complex question, but one of the stronger set of suggestions, relevant to the US government, is the subject of Abundance. Abundance argues for a society that builds. A core premise is that the way we’ve arranged our society places too many vetoes on building, and prevents us from creating solutions to needs within our society, for housing, for energy, for infrastructure. But instead of the anti-government thinking that usually accompanies that premise, Abundance argues for a continued, competent role of government in building things we do need. This focus on tangible construction and reliable provision of services directly counteracts the erosion of trust caused by erratic policy and institutional neglect. By demonstrating capacity and a commitment to societal well-being, an Abundance-oriented government rebuilds faith in public institutions and, by extension, strengthens the nation's credibility on the international stage. Without the right incentives, private activity won’t build everything we need, and so you need to be active in providing those. In addition, state capacity is needed to provide unique services, like safety, dispute resolution, and a safety net that avoids bad luck, or even bad decisions from creating situations where opportunity is no longer available, where hardship is absolute.

In the realm of international trust, a nation that both follows, and believes in the concepts that are the subject of Abundance is a nation that is easier to build real, lasting trust with. Shared competency improves trust in every case except among outright enemies. As a comparison to past contexts for international trade, the mindset of abundance is an improvement of the consumerist mindset that has represented a part of the US projection of the last 30 years. While Abundance does focus on providing, it does so in a more comprehensive manner than a consumerist mindset, incorporating the method of production, the impediments, and efficiency overall.

Choosing to Build: Overcoming Pessimism to Reform and Restore Trust

The current anxieties and the nature of the responses—such as the aggressive stance on tariffs, which erodes international trust, and the push to dismantle domestic bureaucratic structures, which damages organizational capacity—appear to stem from a deeply pessimistic assessment of our capacity to reform and improve existing systems. This pessimism leads to treating complex, irreversible decisions as if they were two-way doors. By underestimating the difficulty of rebuilding what is lost, and the value of what exists, whether it be organizational capacity or international trust, destructive actions are being employed as tactical leverage for small, and often very personal purposes. The challenge lies in shifting from this reactive, potentially destructive stance. This requires not only acknowledging the complexities of reform but actively embracing a framework like Abundance, which offers a constructive, forward-looking vision—one that values building over dismantling and recognizes that rebuilding trust and organizational capacity, while not trivial, is essential for a thriving society, rather than succumbing to the belief that radical disruption is the only path.