Is there a MAGA master plan or are they making it up as they go along?

Key Markets report for Thursday, 24 April 2025

As much as we'd like to arrive at an informed judgment about where the MAGA ship is sailing, this seems next to impossible at present. Analyses abound but even among the most learned pundits, opinions differ widely. I think that one question that's on many people's minds is whether the new administration is just careening from one crisis to the next, making things up as they go along, or whether there's actually a MAGA master plan that they're attempting to advance.

It does seem that given all the madness and unpredictability, a majority is converging on the assumption that the ship is rudderless. If that's true, there's no predicting where it might go. But if there's a master plan, it should be easier to assess what the administration is doing in terms of how it is able to advance towards its objectives.

Turning point: 180 or 360 degrees?

I find it very hard to reconcile what I'm observing with the idea that the administration is just making things up and responding to crises and scandals of their own making. Although we aren't privy to any well-formulated MAGA plan, certain statements from the administration officials like Scott Bessent, Steve Miran, Marco Rubio and Trump himself, strongly suggest that there is a plan, or at least there is a mission and a strong committment to that mission.

Embracing the multipolar future

Recall, on 15 January, during his confirmation hearings, Marco Rubio stated that the post-World War II global order was more than obsolete and that it was being used "as a weapon against us." He also explicitly embraced multipolar integrations as the future of global development. We should assume that Rubio didn't come up with that himself - he was stating the administration policy position. If the administration sees the future role of the United States as a major power in a multipolar world, that suggests a clear policy goal.

A number of statements by Bessent, Miran and Trump make it clear that part of that goal is to make the United States a manufacturing powerhouse once more - Trump pretty much stated exactly that on several occasions.

Then there's the question of tariffs, where the government appears to have blundered quite bigly. But you'd have to have an IQ of an amoeba not to appreciate that this was going to create a storm, and it entailed very considerable political risk for Trump. My point here is that one wouldn't take that risk unless it was for a good reason; it would have been safer and easier to avoid rocking the boat and let things drift as they are. The fact that they took that risk again suggests a certain commitment to their mission, which could be to trigger a controlled demolition of the global free trade system and force a renegotiation of all trade relations on a bilateral basis. Now, whether the demolition will be controllable at all remains to be seen.

Overcoming the entrenched groupthink

Over the past few weeks, I've tried to digest the events by reading many articles and watching many interviews by various experts and analysts and found that many of them, including a number whom I otherwise hold in very high regard, base their judgments and opinions on deeply entrenched beliefs and assumptions which might not hold true in a different economic system. In yesterday's report, I alluded to the difference between the free trade system vs. the Hamiltonian "American System." Many analysts are judging Trump as though the free trade system needed to be preserved, but this could be exactly the opposite of what Trump is trying to do, and the judgment that Trump and his government are lost at sea could also be wrong.

One analyst in particular was scandalized that Trump's policies jeopardize the Federal Reserve's independence, as though this was a sacred cow that must not be questioned. Well, there are good arguments for why central banks should not be independent of the political process, and there's also the Fed's 100+ year track record at failing at its mission creep mandates, so its independence and its monetary policy definitely should be questioned.

Unbalancing the opposition and dodging bullets

Again, if Trump is aiming at radical reforms, this will provoke powerful opposition from those segments of the economy who found comfort and privilege in the status quo, and they'll push back strongly against any reforms of the system. This obliges the administration to make certain changes covertly or move in such unpredictable ways as to keep their opponents off balance at all times. At any rate, it is very hard to tell and best we can do is to guess.

But the most important question perhaps is whether it's all a part of some mission, or whether they administration's lost and clueless. My guess would be that they know exactly what they want to achieve. They have the mission, but probably not a concrete plan, due to the fact that advancing toward the mission goals will necessarily include dodging many bullets (including possibly real, lead ones) along the way.

To learn more about TrendCompass reports please check our main TrendCompass web page. We encourage you to also have a read through our TrendCompass User Manual page. For U.S. investors: an investable, fully managed portfolio based on I-System TrendFollowing is available from our partner advisory (more about it here).

Today’s trading signals

With yesterday’s closing prices we have the following changes for the Key Markets portfolio: