Summary: Donald Trump’s recent primetime address lacked a clear policy purpose and came across as a hurried, disorganized performance. The speech’s mix of falsehoods and implausible promises — including a pledge to cut drug costs by 400% — is symptomatic of what the author calls “haphazardism”: an administration pursuing power without a coherent strategy. That inconsistency has produced self-inflicted problems, such as tariffs that have raised living costs, and the televised stunt reads more like political desperation than a plan to regain momentum.
The Pointless Spectacle: What Trump’s Primetime Address Revealed About a Struggling White House
President Donald Trump during a primetime address to the nation in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on December 17, 2025. | Doug Mills/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Donald Trump’s primetime address on Wednesday night was notable not for a major policy announcement or a national crisis, but for its striking lack of purpose.
A Disorganized, Theatrical Performance
The speech felt less like a carefully staged presidential address and more like a series of disconnected talking points stitched together. It mixed familiar falsehoods and implausible claims — including a pledge to cut prescription drug costs by 400 percent — and moved between topics without clear structure. At times the president returned to an earlier point as if remembering it belatedly, and the delivery itself was hurried and sharp, reading from the teleprompter with an agitated cadence.
Why This Matters
Why devote attention to what might seem like a minor television event? Because the decision to stage such an address is itself revealing. It suggests the White House is struggling to find a strategy that can arrest falling poll numbers, internal fissures within the Republican Party, and the prospect of significant Democratic gains in the midterm elections.
“Haphazardism”
Earlier this week the author dubbed the administration’s approach “haphazardism”: an effort to wield unconstrained power without a coherent plan to secure it. That tendency has produced a string of unilateral actions and rhetorical attacks that, while damaging to democratic norms, have not coalesced into a durable governing model. Instead, erratic instincts often produce self-defeating policies.
An Example: Tariffs
A clear case in point is tariffs. Pursued as a political and economic priority, they have also contributed to higher costs for consumers — a direct factor in rising cost-of-living concerns and a driver of slipping approval ratings. When core policies feed the very problems a presidency must solve, political recovery becomes more difficult.
Constraints Inside the White House
Many policy details are delegated to advisers — figures such as Stephen Miller and Russell Vought are frequently cited — but their influence rests on Trump’s personal authority. Challenging his fixed obsessions, whether on trade or on punitive actions against perceived enemies, risks removal. That dynamic makes it difficult for aides to steer the administration away from moves that damage its standing.
Desperation and Theatrics
Given dismal polls and widening schisms among conservatives, the White House appears to be experimenting: try other tactics and see what sticks. A rare primetime megaphone becomes a last-ditch attempt to reset the narrative. Under normal circumstances networks might resist such an unorthodox spectacle, but in a climate where the administration can exert pressure on private institutions, the option remained on the table.
I’m not endorsing this tactic: it reads as desperation, not strategy. But the willingness to resort to theatrical stunts is itself informative. It is one more sign that the administration’s cohesion and political momentum are fraying.
