Trump has defined leadership as being strong

The argument

Trump "telling it how it is" is what his supporters like about him. They see his uncensored way of speaking as relatable. Despite this, being a leader used to mean collaborating with other nations. The contrast drawn here is between two accounts of what strength in office consists of: one locating it in a willingness to say what others will not, and an older one locating it in the ability to build and hold agreements with other countries. Putting America first is all well and good, but when it comes at the expense of our allies, it may do more harm than good. The objection is not to prioritising national interest but to a conception of it that treats the interests of allies as something to be traded against rather than as part of the same account. Trump's brand of leadership has been compared to that of Putin, Erdogan or Xi. This is because they all share the same tendencies to vilify those they disagree with. The comparison is offered as a description of a political style rather than of a system of government. They discredit their opponents while touting a rhetoric of nationalism and present themselves as the last line of defence against an evil only they can fight. Each element reinforces the others: identifying an enemy establishes that there is a threat, nationalism identifies who is threatened by it, and casting oneself as the only defence makes the leader's continuation in office the condition of safety, which converts a political preference into something closer to a necessity. Does this sound familiar? Trump's promises to drain the swamp and strengthen American borders do exactly this. The first names an internal enemy and the second an external one, and both are presented as problems the leader personally will resolve, which is the sense in which what it means to act presidentially has been redefined rather than merely performed differently.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Those who hold that Trump did not transform the meaning of presidential — a sibling position — argue that norm-breaking, combative and nationalist presidents are not new: Andrew Jackson, and to critics figures like Nixon, governed abrasively and vilified opponents, so Trump intensified existing tendencies rather than redefining the office. Another sibling position holds the meaning of 'presidential' has been evolving for decades alongside the media environment, so attributing the shift to Trump personally overstates one figure's effect. Critics also argue that many norms he flouted reasserted themselves after him, suggesting the office's underlying expectations endured rather than being permanently changed. On this view Trump was a departure from recent convention, not a lasting redefinition of what it means to be presidential.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Combative, norm-breaking and nationalist presidents are not new (e.g. Andrew Jackson), so Trump intensified existing tendencies rather than defining a genuinely new meaning of leadership. [Rejecting P2] Expectations of 'presidential' conduct have been shifting for decades with the media environment, so attributing the change to Trump personally overstates one figure's effect. [Rejecting C] Norms Trump flouted largely reasserted themselves afterward, suggesting the office's underlying expectations endured rather than being permanently redefined.