Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes

The 80% principle in politics is attributed mainly to Ronald Reagan.  The political context was his rise to power as Governor of California and later his successful run for the White House, followed by two terms as President. He, along with Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul, is credited with finally defeating Soviet Communism.  He also slowed the growth of the Federal government, although he fell short of balancing the budget.  The latter was made more difficult by the arms buildup that later led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, breaking its finances.

The “80% principle” is derived from a quote attributed to Ronald Reagan: “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20 percent traitor.” This statement encapsulates Reagan’s approach to political and personal alliances, emphasizing unity and pragmatism over ideological purity.

Reagan believed that achieving most of one’s goals (80%) was preferable to demanding 100% agreement, which could lead to gridlock or failure. This approach enabled him to pass significant legislation, including tax reforms and deregulation, by collaborating with those who shared most, but not all, of his vision.

We are now a little more than six months into the second term of Donald Trump, and there has been a flurry of executive orders and some significant legislative achievements.  How would a conservative assess his progress?

We agree that he has made the border situation much improved and is now attacking the root causes of this invasion. The Democrats’ plan to use mass illegal immigration to change the political landscape was to allow illegals to be represented in the census count for Congressional seats and to enable them to vote.

His appointees in various departments, like the EPA, the Defense Intelligence Agencies, the FBI, and the Department of Education, are doing essential work. Not only are they uncovering multiple scandals and horrific waste, along with James Comer in the House of Representatives, but the American people are getting an education about just how corrupt their government has become.  All this is key to “draining the swamp.”

Moreover, in most of these agencies, the new head is changing policies.

His appointment of Pete Hegseth for the Department of Defense is also key.  He is rooting out “wokism” in the military and getting the military back to the business of confronting enemies as opposed to being used as a laboratory of social experimentation for fringe ideas.

In foreign policy, he has helped end about six different conflicts, has gotten the Europeans to spend more money on their own defense, and has backed our ally Israel.  Whether his effort to end the war in Ukraine comes to fruition remains to be seen.

We could go on at much greater length, but we are pleased overall with what Trump has been able to accomplish and the direction he is taking the country.  Critically important is his removal of funding for the vast operations of the Left, ranging from a hornet’s nest of NGOs to subsidizing the transgender agenda.  DOGE is still operating, although at a lower volume, not only finding waste but also cutting funding to the Left.

While we estimate that Trump falls well within the 80% range of our approval, we can’t remain silent on the 20% that makes little sense to us.

Here are some of the problems that we see that, if anyone in the Administration cares, we hope the President changes course.

The Administration had taken steps to rein in the universities that take vast amounts of Federal money.  These universities, often with massive endowments, have not only increased the price of tuition but have also produced students who are not being educated, but rather indoctrinated. While the Administration has moved on this issue, a crucial tangential problem was the vast number of foreign students being “educated” who come from hostile regions of the world, particularly the Chinese.

Recently, the President did an about-face and approved that the US should be educating 600,000 Chinese students.  This is a national security nightmare.  The President must be aware that Article 7 of the Chinese National Intelligence Law states: “All organizations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with law, and shall protect national intelligence work secrets they are aware of.”

This broad language has raised concerns in Western countries, particularly the U.S., about the potential for Chinese citizens, including students, to be compelled to assist in intelligence activities. The law applies to all Chinese citizens, regardless of their residence, and does not explicitly exempt students or specify what “support, assist, and cooperate” entails.

Most of these students come from families of high-ranking party members or otherwise have relatives at home.  This provides the Chinese communists with leverage over these students to do their bidding.

In addition, even if they were not a security risk, the very notion that our best universities and research laboratories should be used to educate our most dangerous enemy seems, on the surface, preposterous. 

What is Trump thinking here, and why the reversal on this issue? Just in May 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced plans to “aggressively revoke” visas for Chinese students with connections to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) or those studying in “critical fields” (e.g., AI, robotics). This policy targeted the approximately 277,398 Chinese students enrolled in U.S. universities during the 2023–24 academic year, who comprised 24.5% of the 1.13 million international students.

This certainly falls into the 20% we disagree with.  We see no upside to this reversal, but recently, Trump said that it was simply “the right thing to do.” Huh?

Then, the President, along with Senator Tom Cotton, noted that the new CEO of Intel, a major chipmaker with huge facilities in the Phoenix area, had troublesome ties to the Chinese government. He called for him to resign.

The Intel CEO visits the White House, and it appears he retains his position by offering 10% of the company to the US government. As we wrote previously, this is entirely against the MAGA principle of deregulation and getting the government out of business.  On the one hand, the Administration wants to privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while on the other hand, it intends to nationalize the semiconductor industry partially.  This makes no sense to us at all.

Moreover, if the CEO was a security threat, how does leaving him in charge of a vital company, partially owned by the US government, make things better?

The budget crisis does not seem to get sufficient attention.  We had an abortive start with DOGE, and tariffs are generating more revenue than most expected.  But Federal spending remains too high, and reform of our entitlement systems is hardly discussed. As we have pointed out before, approximately 80% of the expenditure is currently on autopilot, and Congress is primarily fighting over a small portion of the budget.  That can’t continue, given the demographic trends; both Medicare and Social Security are headed for a crisis in just six or seven years.  We don’t have the luxury of dithering on this issue much longer.

We understand why he might have a beef with the Federal Reserve.  The Fed cut interest rates before the last election cycle, despite inflation being higher than it is now.  Yes, the Fed likes to say it is not political, but it obviously is at times. However, we are unsure whether his approach is justified.

One can make a good argument to eliminate the Fed, as Ron Paul and others have campaigned for years.  But as long as we have a central bank, it should be kept as independent as possible. The problem with the Fed is that it is a central planning agency, with all the difficulties inherent in command-and-control economic management.  However, handing over the command and control structure to politicians may be even more dangerous than leaving it in the hands of bankers and economists. 

Finally, while we understand that, given the close majorities Republicans have in the House and Senate, Trump is trying to get things done through the extensive use of Executive Orders.

The problem is that this may violate another key part of MAGA, the separation of powers, as mandated by the will of ‘We the People”. Congress should write or rewrite laws whenever possible. We would rather see more legislation and less use of Executive Orders.  EOs can be replaced by the next Democrat elected and thus may not have significant long-term influence on the country’s trajectory.

Making Congress exercise itself is also vital in building broad coalitions of power, educating the public, and holding those elected accountable.  The whole system tends to atrophy when Congress is allowed to sit on its hands.  As stated before, the separation of powers doctrine dictates that Congress should write the laws, and the widespread use of Executive Orders codifies bad behavior that the next Democratic President can exploit.

Overall, we think Trump is doing a good job and delivering on his promises.  But there are areas that we believe can be improved, and we hope someone will tell the President to change course on Chinese students and nationalizing key industries. 

Perhaps the use of Executive Orders will decrease after the midterm elections. Still, we believe that conservatives should not support the widespread use of EOs and the bypassing of the legislative process in Congress.  It is the job of Congress to write laws.

That said, while we have our problems with the Administration, we are taking a deep breath to have patience and keep the 80% principle in mind.