Calculated Chaos, Calculated Hate: Trump’s Economic Sabotage, “Tech Feudalism,” and the Myth of His Insanity

As The Guardian detailed in its January 2025 analysis of President Trump’s first 100 days in office during his second term, the actions of this administration have been swift, aggressive, and ideologically driven. From invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan immigrants, to dismantling the Department of Education, to reigniting trade wars with U.S. allies and adversaries alike, Trump’s return to power has been marked by bold moves that upend both domestic governance and global alliances. These developments are not chaotic improvisations. They reflect a deeper, more coherent project—one that demands renewed scrutiny.

As President Donald Trump advances through his second term, the discourse surrounding his leadership remains deeply polarized and increasingly urgent. Observers continue to grapple with the nature of his actions: are they manifestations of strategic genius, mere impulsive chaos, or something altogether more troubling? Despite enduring two impeachments and 91 indictments during his first term, Trump's political resilience has culminated in a return to the Oval Office, prompting renewed scrutiny of his underlying motives and methods.

A critical misstep in analyzing Trump's behavior is the tendency to dismiss his actions as mere insanity or incompetence. This perspective, as argued in Slate's 2017 article, “Donald Trump Isn’t Mentally Ill. He’s Evil,” overlooks the calculated nature of his strategies. Labeling Trump as insane underestimates the deliberate and sinister methods he employs to achieve his objectives, a misjudgment that has persisted since the early days of his first term.

In my previous work, Calculated Chaos: The Sinister Strategy Behind Trump’s Economic Sabotage, I posited that Trump's seemingly erratic actions conceal a deliberate strategy aimed at destabilizing democratic institutions and enriching himself. His recent invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan immigrants, the imposition of tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China, and the suspension of military aid to Ukraine are not random acts of chaos but calculated moves designed to consolidate power and undermine global stability.

These actions align with a broader pattern of exploiting chaos for personal and political gain. By creating an environment of uncertainty and fear, Trump positions himself as the central figure capable of navigating the turmoil he instigates. This approach not only destabilizes democratic structures but also enriches those within his inner circle who stand to benefit from the upheaval.

A particularly alarming aspect of Trump's strategy is his recent rhetoric suggesting the annexation of territories such as Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal. While these declarations may seem outrageous or dismissible as mere bluster, they serve a more insidious purpose. By making such claims, Trump provides a veneer of legitimacy to similar actions by other global leaders, most notably Russian President Vladimir Putin's aggression in Ukraine. This tactic creates a dangerous precedent, undermining international norms and emboldening authoritarian regimes to pursue expansionist agendas under the guise of national interest.

Authoritative analyses have drawn parallels between Trump's expansionist rhetoric and Putin's justifications for the invasion of Ukraine. For instance, a CNN analysis highlights that Trump's threats toward Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal reflect a foreign policy rationale in which powerful nations aggressively pursue unilateral goals—thereby normalizing such behavior on the global stage. These parallels are not accidental. They are designed to serve a shared narrative between authoritarian strongmen: that empire-building is not only acceptable but inevitable, and that liberal norms and treaties are nothing more than outdated formalities obstructing “greatness.”

Furthermore, Trump's actions resonate with historical doctrines that justified territorial expansion under the pretext of national security and economic interest. By echoing such justifications, Trump not only destabilizes the current international order but also provides authoritarian leaders with a rhetorical toolkit to rationalize their own territorial ambitions. What appears as a fringe fantasy on Trump’s part—a revived Monroe Doctrine on steroids—functions rhetorically to give cover to global power grabs, cloaked in the language of sovereignty and national destiny.

In conclusion, understanding Trump's behavior as a calculated strategy rather than mere insanity is crucial. His actions are designed to disrupt democratic institutions, consolidate power, and legitimize authoritarian expansionism globally. Recognizing this pattern is essential for developing effective responses to counteract the erosion of democratic norms and the rise of autocratic influence worldwide.

To grasp the true nature of Donald Trump’s behavior—both in his first term and even more alarmingly in his second—it is essential to reject one of the most persistent and misleading narratives about him: that he is mentally ill, irrational, or somehow incapable of coherent intent. This idea continues to seduce pundits, politicians, and even some of his opponents because it offers a kind of reassurance: if Trump is simply “crazy,” then he can be dismissed as aberrant, unpredictable, and ultimately self-defeating. But this interpretation is not only false—it is politically dangerous.

This section turns to an argument first articulated clearly by Will Saletan in Slate in 2017: that Trump’s actions are not best explained by mental illness, but by malice. As Saletan pointed out early in Trump’s presidency, calling him “insane” does more than misdiagnose the problem—it lets him off the hook. It shifts attention away from his willful cruelty, his strategic manipulations, and his capacity to learn which levers of power produce the greatest personal benefit. That insight is even more vital today.

If we are to understand the deliberate chaos of Trump’s second-term agenda—particularly his economic sabotage and authoritarian posturing—we must begin by confronting the myth of incompetence and the more comforting narrative of mental illness. As the next section will argue, Trump’s economic policies were not bungled attempts at reform, but calculated efforts to degrade the institutions that limit his power and redistribute wealth toward his political allies. What follows is not a diagnosis of psychological disorder, but an analysis of moral disorder—of intentional cruelty dressed in populist rhetoric, and destruction masquerading as reform.

The Slate Argument: Not “Mentally Ill,” But Willfully Malicious

In his 2017 Slate piece, Will Saletan argues that labeling Donald Trump as mentally ill is a convenient oversimplification that diminishes the true danger he poses. Defining him as “crazy” or “insane” risks painting him as incapable of rational thought or moral decision-making. Yet Trump’s actions—whether on the campaign trail, in the Oval Office, or in the aftermath of his presidency—consistently underscore a capacity for deliberate, strategic, and cruel behavior.

If we entertain the idea that Trump is mentally ill, then to some degree we imagine he cannot fully help himself; a person who is “ill” is to be pitied or treated, not entirely blamed. This illusion carries dire political consequences because it exculpates Trump’s manipulations. More than that, it detaches these manipulations from accountability, recasting them as blunders of an unstable mind rather than the dangerous calculations of someone who actually knows what he’s doing.

This idea dovetails with a major theme: Trump’s personal brand has never been primarily about coherent policy but about showmanship and audience capture. Still, calling him merely a “showman” or “mad king” sells short the intentional damage his policies inflict. To underscore that point, let us examine the ways in which his economic choices were not random lurches but measured moves to degrade certain American institutions—and to financially and politically benefit himself and his allies.

The Calculated Chaos: Undermining the Economy for Personal Gain

The Myth of Incompetence

When confronted with erratic trade wars, protectionist tariffs, or inflammatory rhetoric against central banks, many commentators dismissed Trump’s moves as incompetent. In reality, a more consistent logic weaves through these policies: rather than aiming to strengthen U.S. institutions, they aim to weaken them, sow discord, and narrow channels of wealth and power into the hands of a select few.

Consider the 2018–2019 tariff wars. Analysts across the political spectrum viewed them as self-defeating because they disrupted markets, hurt American farmers, and dampened global economic growth. Nonetheless, some industries, many favored by Trump, benefited in the short term. What appears as wide-scale sabotage was arguably the strategic realignment of economic fortunes into the hands of a particular cadre of business elites and donors. Tariffs that punish foreign exporters often yield short-term gains for politically connected domestic companies, while average Americans shoulder higher prices and fewer choices.

Weakening the U.S. Dollar

Similarly, Trump’s repeated calls for lower interest rates and his penchant for criticizing the Federal Reserve signaled a desire for a weaker dollar. Common sense might dictate that a stronger currency connotes national economic health. But a weaker dollar can, for a time, inflate corporate profits for certain multinational exporters—sometimes to the detriment of domestic consumers who face higher costs of imported goods.

This short-term “benefit” has destructive long-term repercussions, especially for those not shielded by private wealth or corporate influence. By undermining confidence in U.S. fiscal institutions (e.g., the Federal Reserve), Trump effectively turned the economy into a battlefield, with his supporters and favored industries often reaping the spoils in the short run, while small businesses, agricultural communities, and most working-class Americans found themselves squeezed by rising prices and economic uncertainty.

Calculated Hate and Retribution

To consider all this as random or insane overlooks a crucial dimension of Trump’s psyche and political strategy. The man who famously sought retribution against anyone who crossed him—journalists, politicians, entire branches of government—can hardly be labeled as simply incompetent. Rather, we see a pattern of revenge and exploitation, a potent mixture of personal vendettas wedded to policies that increase turmoil. The chaos is calculated, weaponized to keep the public off-balance while funneling resources into the hands of Trump-friendly industries.

And let us not forget: in Trump’s rhetoric, “Making America Great Again” often coincides with scapegoating huge swaths of the American population—immigrants, inner-city residents, the “radical left,” or even his own supporters when they fail to deliver unconditional loyalty. As shocking as it may sound, his actions frequently betray an actual contempt for the people whose votes he courted, indicating not merely indifference but at times genuine disgust.

Tech Feudalism and the New Lords: How Chaos Serves a Broader Techno-Fascist Agenda

The Rise of the “Tech Overlords”

Beyond Trump, the larger political economy in the U.S. has shown a tendency toward “tech feudalism,” a term encapsulated by The Nation’s coverage of Elon Musk. The phenomenon here is subtle: despite the veneer of innovation and disruption, massive tech platforms (owned or heavily influenced by figures like Musk) are increasingly centralizing power. They dominate not just markets but also public discourse—blurring the lines between a free marketplace of ideas and a manipulative, profit-driven enterprise.

If Trump’s America fosters mistrust in institutions—government oversight, regulatory bodies, mass media—then tech feudalism steps into this vacuum. Platforms that once promised global connectivity now operate as de facto states, wielding disproportionate control over speech, commerce, and even the trajectory of political discourse. In an environment riven by economic anxiety, tech lords command near-fealty from users dependent on their platforms.

How Trump’s Economic Chaos Fuels Tech Fascism

A destabilized economy can accelerate the consolidation of technological power in a few hands. Consider:

1. Reduced Regulatory Oversight: When government agencies are in disarray, the regulatory apparatus that keeps tech giants in check loses its bite. Trump’s chaotic administration was marked by leadership voids in critical regulatory bodies. This administrative hollowing-out cleared the path for rapid, unchecked expansion by major tech companies.

2. Consolidation Amid Crises: Tariff wars, fear over currency fluctuations, and general economic instability often create pressure on smaller competitors to either shut down or be acquired by larger tech entities. When shareholders sense instability, they might see a massive corporation as a “safe harbor,” ironically fueling monopolistic trends.

3. Control over Public Narrative: Chaos fosters a yearning for order. Tech platforms—Twitter (now X) under Musk’s leadership, for example—offer the illusion of unity or direct communication channels from the “top” (be it the president or the tech lord) to the masses. Yet this channels public sentiment through filters that favor certain ideologies, power structures, and celebrity figures, amplifying authoritarian tendencies.

By fueling chaos, whether in trade policy or financial markets, Trump (intentionally or not) has contributed to an environment in which the lines between democracy and autocracy, corporate dominance and government oversight, blur more each day. Where the government recedes, tech moguls step in, constructing a form of “techno-fascism” that merges cults of personality with algorithmic control.

The Danger of Naïveté: Why Dismissing Trump as “Insane” Undermines the Real Threat

Trump’s actions reveal that he doesn’t merely bumble from one policy fiasco to another. He often enacts or inspires deeply regressive changes that systematically harm large segments of America. His behavior toward those who opposed or criticized him—journalists, political adversaries, entire government agencies—shows a cunning willingness to punish even the electorate that put him in power if it means exerting dominance or feeding his desire for retribution.

If we casually assume he is “insane,” then we remain vulnerable to his methods. It is more prudent to recognize that his actions reflect malevolence, strategic cruelty, or both. By acknowledging that he and his circle intentionally sow discord and cultivate ignorance, we can better anticipate—and neutralize—such methods of sabotage.

Moreover, blithely ascribing his vindictive assaults on America’s institutions to mere mental illness obscures the direct line between his policies and the strengthening of new centers of unaccountable power, such as Musk-style techno-feudalism. With Trump serving as a cultural lightning rod, corporate CEOs in Silicon Valley operate in a space that has become increasingly lawless, forging a future that is neither purely capitalist nor democratic. In effect, they can flourish in the cracks of public chaos.

Conclusion: Confronting the Calculated Hate Behind Trump’s Grift

From tariffs that harm American workers in favor of politically connected corporations, to the deliberate undermining of central banking authority, Donald Trump’s approach to governance is in many ways less about incompetent flailing and more about a potent, profit-driven brand of sabotage. He has effectively capitalized on division, using anger and resentment to consolidate power for himself and his favored allies, all while accelerating the rise of a new class of unregulated tech oligarchs who thrive in tumult.

Simultaneously, his contempt for much of America—including his own base when it suits him—reveals the uglier truth: Trump hates the idea of communal oversight, of checks and balances, of moral responsibility. He has no interest in healing national divides or forging unity unless those goals align with self-enrichment.

Labeling such a person “insane” or “out of control” does little more than grant him an undeserved benefit of the doubt. As argued in Slate, we should see his behavior not as the product of mental instability but as the deliberate work of an individual bent on vengeance, grift, and self-glorification. Recognizing the malevolence behind this calculated chaos becomes even more critical when we realize how it fits into a larger environment of “tech feudalism,” where powerful moguls like Elon Musk and others take advantage of governmental weakness to build their private empires.

It is only through clear-eyed examination of Trump’s motivations—and the synergy between political chaos and the tech industry’s lawless expansion—that we can mount an effective response. Understanding that he is not insane, but coldly strategic, is the first necessary step. The next is challenging the entrenchment of power in the hands of opportunistic politicians and tech barons who feed on national discord. In recognizing and confronting these forces, we may yet preserve the institutions and democratic processes that stand between us and the new feudal order hovering menacingly on the horizon.