A dramatic, and sometimes controversial, campaign and transition period culminated Friday in Donald Trump’s inauguration as the 45th president of the United States.
In his speech, he said it was “the day the people became rulers of this nation again” and pledged that from now on, “it's only going to be America first” expanding on his campaign promise to “make America great again.”
He stayed true to his populist support base and expanded on his anti-establishment message saying “we are transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you, the people.”
“The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer,” he added.
Promising change from previous administrations, he said the “American carnage stops right here and stops right now.”
“For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry, subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military,” said the new President. “We've defended other nation’s borders while refusing to defend our own.”
Striking an isolationist tone, Trump said he would bring back jobs, borders and wealth, and pledged to secure the American people with protection from “the great men and women of our military and law enforcement.” He also said he would “reinforce old alliances and form new ones and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism.”
The inauguration ceremony was held amid heavy security in the capital, with thousands of Trump backers and opponents expected through the weekend for rallies and protests.
Even before taking office, the brash businessman from New York had already ruffled feathers and sparked division both abroad and at home, worrying European allies by threatening to walk away from NATO, angering China by speaking to the Taiwanese President by phone, and repeatedly criticizing the nation’s mainstream media and the Intelligence Community for its investigation into Russian interference in the presidential election.
But on Friday, he said “whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots.”
On Saturday, his first full day as U.S. president, Trump paid a visit to the CIA headquarters, signalling an effort to mend fences with the agency. "I know sometimes you haven't got the backing that you wanted, but I am so behind you," he said to a group of CIA officers.
Trump's choice for CIA Director Mike Pompeo is expected to get confirmed by the Senate on Monday. Two of Trump’s key posts – General James Mattis, the Secretary of Defense and General John Kelly, the pick for Homeland Security – were both confirmed hours after the President's inauguration.
The Trump team has said it is eager to get straight to work. On Thursday, the new White House spokesman Sean Spicer held his first briefing, in which he said some 50 critical Obama administration officials would to stay on until they could be replaced to ensure a smooth transition. They include Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work, Brett McGurk, the U.S. envoy for countering Islamic State, and National Counterterrorism Center Director Nick Rasmussen.
With a new commander at the helm, The Cipher Brief asked former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin for his views on the Donald Trump’s inauguration speech and the messages portrayed by the new President.
The Cipher Brief: It was a populist speech, playing to his support base and in line with his campaign message. What were your overall impressions?
John McLaughlin: The speech sounded more like a campaign speech than an inaugural address. It had the merit of complete consistency with what he promised followers. Its shortcoming was an absence of effort to reach out to those who question his themes, oppose them, or simply thirst for more detail. Among "believers," he pushed hopes sky high with promises to rebuild infrastructure, restore jobs, strengthen the military, and stamp out terrorism. It was populist in the extreme, in the sense that it spoke only to anxiety and aspirations with a deficit of revelation regarding means. His few efforts to invoke hope were overwhelmed by the dark themes — crimes, gangs, drugs, "American carnage."
It overworked the theme of Washington as the profiteering source of all that's wrong with the country. This is a perennial with new administrations, who almost always discover after a year or two that the predecessors they regarded as inept, corrupt, or stupid were actually working pretty hard on really complex problems. This illusory starting point is a luxury we allow all new U.S. presidents.
TCB: What are the implications of the idea of “America First”? How could that affect the U.S. role in the world? Or how it’s perceived?
JM: The "America First" theme has an appealing side and an alarming one, and the balance is hard to discern because we cannot yet know what he really means. The appealing part is that we do need to evaluate our interests, domestic and foreign, and make sure our pursuit beyond our borders of lofty values or our involvement in foreign conflicts is not inordinately at the expense of our own peoples' welfare. The alarming part is that it seems to back away from America's leadership role in the world at a time when no one is prepared to assume the mantel with welfare beyond their own as a goal. It is concerning as well because the world's problems today require in so many cases require concerted action. This means that alliance management and coalition building will be even more important for the U.S. than in the past.
TCB: Is it reassuring then, that the choices for key cabinet positions differ with the President in some of their views? For instance, General Mattis has stood firm on the importance of NATO, despite the President’s criticism of the alliance. General Kelly said he would abide by the Geneva convention when asked if he may bring back “waterboarding,” in opposition to a Trump campaign pledge. Can they bring balance to the policies? Or could this spell more challenges for the administration?
JM: I actually can't imagine any of Trump's national security nominees giving the same speech. So it is reassuring that they sound different themes. Mattis, Kelly, CIA Director-designate Mike Pompeo, and Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson all seem committed to solving problems that require active engagement with allies and U.S. international leadership. Some of Trump's rhetoric suggests he wants that too. But engagement invariably involves some cost in terms of material, attention, or both. Maybe there is less to Trump's pledge than meets the ear. But if not, these advisors and Trump will have to strike a balance between America First and what they clearly see as our international obligations. If they cannot, there will be some clashes which, left unresolved, usually lead to resignations or replacements.
TCB: President Trump has made no secret of his feelings for the Intelligence Community. How dangerous is that in terms of the perception of the United States abroad? How should the Intelligence Community and the new CIA director address those concerns and work with the President?
JM: President Trump and the Intelligence Community will have to come to some understanding or national security will suffer. I think most of the adjustment has to be on the President's side because the IC has actually done nothing to harm him and will want to be as helpful as possible. My experience with the CIA tells me it is very unlikely that they are the source of leaks that concern him; moreover the "leak" he's been most vocal about – the famous dossier by a former British intelligence officer – was not an intelligence document and was in the hands of the press for weeks before it became public. What I'm certain of is that the IC will work very hard to understand what he needs to be the most effective commander-in-chief and do their level best to get it for him. They know that all presidents absorb intelligence in different ways. They will figure out what works for him. That's what they do. For them, the president is Customer No. 1, and their skins are thick enough to recover quickly from any brush burns left from the last few weeks. For the President's part, he will have get used to engaging with a group that lays out the facts dispassionately, calls things as they see them, and, to coin a phrase "let the chips fall where they may." Being president also involves developing a thicker skin.
TCB: What qualities do you think President Trump has that could serve the U.S. well?
JM: President Trump does strike me as a "decider," so presented with smart options, he could bring an impressive energy and activism to government. That puts a special burden on his Chief of Staff, National Security Advisor and Cabinet officers to tee things up for him in a way that leads to sound decisions; I doubt he'll have much patience for the endless discussion and indecision that often characterizes the interagency process. He is said to be very effective in small groups and one-on-one discussions and that could enable better relations with foreign counterparts and Congress. Maybe he should relax his Twitter hand for a while.
Leone Lakhani is executive producer and reporter at The Cipher Brief. Follow her on Twitter @LeoneLakhani.
