-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
Until recently, President Trump always found a way to fail forward, through a combination of spin, threats, payoffs and bluster.
OK, that’s the simplistic interpretation. The fine print tells a less-glamorous story: a man born on third base who spent decades insisting he’d hit a triple.
Still, it’s hard to argue with success. When Trump entered politics, he redefined the rules of the game. Rivals who tried to outflank him on policy detail, ideological consistency and institutional norms found themselves either vanquished or assimilated by the Borg.
By my lights, only once during Trump’s admittedly chaotic first term did he run into something that his playbook couldn’t at least mitigate or parry: the COVID-19 pandemic. For the final year of his presidency, reality refused to negotiate, and political gravity reasserted itself. It turns out, viruses aren’t susceptible to the Art of The Deal.
But then, miraculously, Trump wriggled through legal jeopardy, bulldozed his way past more conventional Republicans and Democrats, and re-emerged victorious in 2024.
If anything, that comeback reinforced the idea that Trump could survive anything by virtue of his playbook.
By the start of his second term, he’d made impressive headway in co-opting not only individuals but also major institutions within big tech, the media and academia.
Even in foreign affairs, Trump’s sense that any problem could be solved via force, intimidation or money was confirmed when he captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and installed Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, as a sort of puppet leader. Everyone has a price, right?
Unfortunately for Trump, no. Not everyone does.
Lately, the president has encountered a different kind of resistance — adversaries motivated by something bigger and more transcendent than money, power or the avoidance of pain.
In dealing with Iran, for instance, Trump has confronted people operating under a wholly different set of incentives. It’s a regime guided by a mix of ideology, radical religious doctrine and long-term strategic interests that don’t always align with short-term material gain.
(Now perhaps, having punished Trump enough already, Iran will finally come to the negotiating table. But even if that happens, it will have occurred after exacting a steep price — so steep, in fact, that it may already be too late for Trump to plausibly claim a win.)
It turns out, you can’t easily intimidate or pay off a true believer who isn’t afraid to die and believes they have God on their side.
A similar (though obviously not morally equivalent) dynamic is now also on display in the form of Trump’s skirmish with Pope Leo XIV, a man who commands moral authority. He opposes the war in Iran (“Blessed are the peacemakers”) and has demonstrated a stubborn refusal to back down to Trump’s attempts at bullying.
“Woe to those who manipulate religion and the very name of God for their own military, economic and political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth,” Leo said during a tour of Africa. It’s a remark that the American pope seemed to implicitly be aiming at the American president.
Here’s what Trump doesn’t understand: There are still pockets of the world where concepts like faith and national identity outweigh tangible incentives. Where sacrifice and suffering are an accepted part of the plan.
When facing these sorts of foes, Trump’s usual operating system starts to look less like a cheat code and more like a category error.
But he can’t see this because Trump is always prone to a sort of cynical projection — of assuming everyone views the world in the same base, carnal, corrupt way he sees it.
Whether it was his incredulity that Denmark wouldn’t sell Greenland, rhetoric that seemed to discount the motivations of those who serve and sacrifice in the military, or his affinity for nakedly transactional gulf states, the pattern is familiar: a tendency to view decisions through a cost-benefit lens that not everyone shares.
To be fair, that lens has often served him well. In arenas where power, money and leverage dominate, Trump’s approach is eerily effective.
But after years of taming secular, “rational” opponents, he is fighting a two-front war against people who see their struggles as moral and spiritual.
They aren’t stronger in a conventional sense. But they are, in a very real sense, less susceptible to Trump’s methods.
For perhaps the first time in his life, Donald Trump finds himself facing adversaries who aren’t just immune to his usual Trumpian playbook but are playing a different game altogether.
Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”
More to Read
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The article argues that Trump’s traditional playbook of intimidation, threats, and financial incentives has proven ineffective against adversaries motivated by ideology and moral conviction. This perspective is supported by former US officials noting Iran refuses to capitulate to Trump’s demands, just as the regime did not yield on the battlefield, because Iran views any deal through the lens of national interest rather than material coercion[2]. Additionally, Pope Leo XIV’s consistent opposition to the war demonstrates a principled commitment to peace that transcends Trump’s transactional worldview[1].
The piece contends that Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian infrastructure represented a moral and legal failure. Commentary in the search results reinforces this argument, noting the threat constituted a potential war crime that violated Catholic just war doctrine, which unconditionally rejects targeting civilians, as well as the Geneva Conventions to which the United States is a signatory[3]. The article suggests such overreach undermined Trump’s negotiating position.
The author argues that Trump’s cynical projection—his assumption that everyone is motivated by money, power, or the avoidance of pain—blinds him to alternative value systems. This critique is supported by commentary emphasizing Trump’s “total disrespect and arrogance toward the Pope” demonstrates “immaturity, lack of character, and a complete lack of any spirituality,” revealing his inability to comprehend motivations beyond material self-interest[1].
The article suggests Pope Leo XIV’s moral authority and international standing represent a form of power that Trump’s conventional leverage cannot overcome. This view aligns with statements from Rome’s mayor affirming that the Pope’s “commitment to peace” embodies values of “respect, dialogue, and mediation” that command genuine global support[1].
Different views on the topic
Some observers contend that Trump’s military action against Iran was strategically justified regardless of the rhetorical approach, arguing that Iran posed an imminent nuclear threat that necessitated decisive action[1]. This perspective suggests the military intervention was appropriate even if Trump’s subsequent comments about the Pope were counterproductive.
Critics argue that Pope Leo XIV overstepped appropriate boundaries by intervening in secular political matters, contending that while Trump’s comments were crude, the Church itself errs when it wades into foreign policy disputes[1]. This view suggests the Pope, not solely Trump, shares responsibility for the conflict between religious and political authority.
Commentators question whether coverage of Trump’s pope criticism represents balanced reporting, characterizing the media narrative as propaganda that cherry-picked minor figures and perversely cited Iranian leadership—a nation described as “the world’s number one state sponsor of terrorism”—as credible voices on peace[1]. This perspective suggests Trump’s criticism of the Pope received unfair amplification.
Some observers defend Trump’s approach by emphasizing Iran represents a genuine existential threat, with one noting “Iran, unhinged as it is now, is a very real & present threat to humanity,” suggesting that forceful negotiating tactics were warranted given the stakes involved[1].
Critics point out that while Trump faced condemnation, Pope Leo XIV received praise from Iranian leaders accused of targeting civilians and committing atrocities, raising questions about whether the Pope’s moral authority was being selectively applied and whether his peace advocacy inadvertently legitimized a problematic regime[1].