Not even a month into office and Trump is already at odds with America, this time going on the offensive against judges against his ban.

What is the issue at hand?

A temporary block against the ban for citizens of 7 predominantly Muslim countries from the Middle East by a federal judge has led to generated backlash from President Trump. The ban was justified by the statement from Judge James Robart of the Federal District Court of Seattle which stated that “there’s no support for the argument that we have to protect the US from individuals from seven predominantly Muslim countries.” As a reaction to this, airlines actively began to inform passengers that they were allowed to travel because their Visas were once again active. Followed by this were also declarations from the Department of Homeland Security, which stated that despite the declarations from the executive order, regular procedures for international travel had resumed. The backlash that followed was not pretty.

The Trump administration retaliated to this judgment with the statement that they were not on board with the judge’s decree and that it was a risky move to make. However, Trump’s barrage on Twitter set a more problematic precedent, taking direct attacks at the judge through a series of tweets. Such actions were condemned by fellow politicians, some stating that this type of behavior was not befitting of a Presidency. Trump, as per his persona, ignored the comments, and continued his actions regardless of any criticism.

What does this mean?

The actions of the President are indeed not befitting of a President, as the manner by which he reacted to the decision of the judge was almost tantrum-like in nature. His active lack of incentive to take any form of criticism is a very fundamental issue that is proliferated through the entirety of the Trump administration. The administration often times only attempts to justify the actions that he has taken through absurd claims, such as masquerading lies under the label of “alternative facts” or going so far as to making up tragedies to justify courses of action. The ideological precedent the President states is highly influential, but perhaps that has escaped a large majority of the American population as we go forward in America’s history.

The worse aspect is the precedent it sets for Trump’s temperament. The interaction with the Australian Prime Minister speaks volumes to the way that Trump has been interacting with global leaders, with a not-so-optimal ending to the discussion. Overall, this sets a dangerous precedent for times ahead, as social media has gradually become one of the most powerful communication tools in modernity. Such developments mean that the general public can be effectively swayed through provocative use of language and then react adequately, and the lack of caution from the United States President creates sufficient grounds for not only misinterpretation but unintentional provocation, thus exponentially increasing the chances for international conflict.

Linguistics also play a great part. The aura of formality conceals meaning effectively for a large portion of any population under the influence of an individual. Particularly for those in the position of political power, the usage of specific wording can be used as a powerful weapon to conceal and manipulate the value or significance as well as the legitimate meaning of any statement made. For Trump, the use of linguistics that is transparent to the common man creates an aura of communicative transparency, but also lays the groundwork for dangerous waters. Common linguistics create a circumstance where there are more grounds for simpler and more open interpretation of intent, which is the prime condition of conflicting understandings as well as antagonistic analysis. This also marks a sign of vulnerability, as the lack of the aura gives off the impression of a lack of proper understanding of procedural politics, thus implying that the person in question is questionably qualified.

Finally, this also displays the lack of cohesiveness between the branches of government that currently exist in the United States. The reaction of Donald Trump to any opposition from other branches of government speak volumes not only to his desire to block out all criticism and construct his own reality, but also to the lack of cohesiveness between the branches of government. This marks the United States as a divided government, despite being ‘united’ in theory in terms of party majority. This, sequentially, could potentially mark the United States as weak and ineffective in terms of taking action, which could mark a precedent for domestic and foreign hostility.

This does not bode well for American politics and its future.