Today, we present a guest post written by Jeffrey Frankel, Harpel Professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and formerly a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. A shorter version was published in Project Syndicate.
February 6, 2026 — Each time we think we have exhausted the question of what explains the crazy things that Donald Trump says and does, he comes out with something even crazier, which sends us back to the puzzle anew.
The first conclusion, popular during Trump’s first presidency, was that his assertions were never meant to be taken literally. But as he has followed through on a growing number of threats, from seeking revenge against political opponents to attacking Venezuela and kidnapping its president, this explanation has lost plausibility.
- America First?
Next, it was said that he departed from past custom by “Putting America First,” that is, guided by US self-interest, rather than as a self-sacrificing benevolent one-worlder. It is true that the open, liberal, rules-based order that the US has led since World War II was mostly good for the world, despite some bad mistakes. It delivered an unprecedented 80 years of relative peace and prosperity, like nobody in history has ever seen before. But just because it was good for other countries, does not mean it was bad for the US. The US benefited as much as anyone. It became an economic and geopolitical superpower, including by facilitating the US dollar’s rise as the premier international currency.
The US has reaped a large share of the benefits. A small country can ignore the effect it has on the design and upkeep of the system, because it can free ride on the work of other countries. But the US is large enough that its participation can make the difference as to whether there is a functioning global plan to address climate change, or to allow free trade, or to head off global pandemics, or to prevent countries from changing national borders by force. The US will be one of the biggest losers if Trump succeeds in his apparent campaign to tear down international rules and institutions.
Europe is probably too disunited to take over the role of leader of the international system. China might do it; but this can hardly be the outcome that Trump and his supporters want.
- Helping workers
In the same vein, some have argued that Trump’s actions reflect the frustrations and aspirations of the American workers who feel “left behind” by globalization, technological progress, and social change. But, far from helping this group, Trump’s policies tend to worsen their economic plight.
A good example is the ongoing Republican campaign to reverse former President Barack Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act, which dramatically expanded access to health care, not least for voters who would go on to form Trump’s base. Either Trump’s supporters do not understand how the ACA benefits them – perhaps convinced by his efforts to paint it as a disaster – or they consider the ideological and cultural values Trump purports to represent to be more important. In any case, helping working Americans is clearly not Trump’s guiding principle.
- Transactional?
A final claim is that he is “transactional,” negotiating deals that have narrow short-term benefits, even if they may undermine the long-run reputation and trustworthiness of the United States. But one is hard put to see even narrow short-term benefits from most of his various threats and self–proclaimed deals over the years.
The argument that Trump’s deals are really about lining his own pockets, and those of family members and allies, is more compelling. But even seen through this lens, his behavior remains largely – and increasingly – incoherent.
- The Emperor Who Had No Clothes
It should be easy to agree, at least, that the behavior of the current American President is unprecedented.
But is it? During Caligula’s reign as Emperor of Rome, from AD 37 to AD 41, his behavior deteriorated radically. Historians consider him to have been bonkers.
Caligula bankrupted Rome, building luxurious villas and hosting huge parties. He blamed his troubles on his predecessor, Tiberius. He reveled in gold coins. He insisted that people worship him as god. He grafted busts of his head onto statues of gods. He humiliated Senators by making them kiss his feet or run in front of his chariot for miles. Famously, he tried to make his horse a consul. He declared war on the English Channel. He had sexual relations with his three sisters, among many others. During a gladiator spectacle, on a whim he had a whole section of the audience thrown into the arena to be attacked by the lions.
The parallels with Trump are legion. The US president has a long history of sexual misconduct, and has repeatedly expressed interest in having sex with his daughter, Ivanka. As ordinary Americans struggle to make ends meet, he hosts extravagant parties at his Mar-a-Lago resort. He revels in crypto currencies, has added gold embellishments to the Oval Office and razed the White House’s historic East Wing to build a massive ballroom. And he blames his predecessor, Joe Biden, for America’s every woe.
Trump has built monuments to himself, affixed his name to memorials to others, and compared himself to God. He has sent armed forces to terrorize American cities. He makes Cabinet officials, CEOs, and foreign leaders pay obeisance to him, and attacks anyone deemed “disloyal.” He has debased Congress.
Trump has also insulted, alienated, and bullied America’s closest allies. In a letter to Norway’s prime minister, he explicitly linked his threats to invade and annex Greenland (which he repeatedly confused with Iceland in a January 21 speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos) to the decision not to award him a Nobel Peace Prize. He has re-named the Gulf of Mexico. Meanwhile, he rambles incoherently about windmills, sharks, and the fictional cannibal Hannibal Lecter.
Until now, most pundits have been reluctant to proffer a judgment on Trump’s mental health, partly because calling a public figure “crazy” or “demented” is usually a casual insult signifying little more than heart-felt political disagreement. Be that as it may, I now join those, including former supporters, who can no longer avoid the obvious conclusion: Trump is America’s Caligula.
What is the practical import of this conclusion? If Trump were ever brought to trial for possible crimes (beginning with those that Jack Smith would have prosecuted him for), maybe he could plead innocent by reason of insanity. (Most cases involving the insanity plea are for crimes other than murder.) But, in any case the Supreme Court has declared him untouchable. On the other hand, if members of the cabinet had integrity, they might be expected to use the 25th Amendment to remove him from office, on the grounds of mental health. But, if course, they don’t, and they won’t.
As it is, the only actionable inference may be that we should stop racking our brains for a rational explanation of his bizarre words and actions.
This post written by Jeffrey Frankel.