Critiquing the First 100 Days: Communications Lessons from the Trump White House

Nick Horowitz, Account Director & Editor-in-Chief at Racepoint Global

When a President nears the end of his first 100 days with an approval rating around 40%, it’s a sign of likely flaws in the communications strategy being used to promote his agenda. As the Trump White House reaches this milestone, we have the opportunity to dissect not the politics of the agenda but the methods of communications practice being used to sell it to the American public. As communications professionals, these insights hold true for any advocacy campaign, since promoting any presidential agenda is an exercise in selling ideas.

Mixed Messages: Much has been written about the various factions butting heads inside the West Wing. And while infighting is not uncommon, what’s unique is how openly these differences have spilled into messaging around key priorities. Too often, White House spokespeople have gone on record without a unified message.

In making a second attempt at an executive order restricting travel from Middle Eastern nations, Stephen Miller, appearing on Fox News, claimed the measure was designed to have the same outcome as the original – a message that contradicted other White House spokespeople and one which made it more difficult to sell the order to the public and put it on shaky legal ground. 

Even after actions that have received praise – like the strike on the Syrian airfield used in a chemical attack – the administration has shown a lack of message discipline, with UN Ambassador Nikki Haley backing the removal of Bashar al-Assad as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson talked down support for regime change. This led to a news cycle more concerned with internal conflicts than the action taken by a new Commander in Chief.

Confused messaging makes it difficult to activate allies and wastes time reconciling internal differences, instead of fighting for policy priorities. While a spectrum of ideas within a White House can be valuable, the lack of a unified message reduces the potency of the administration’s efforts to advocate for its agenda.

Didn’t Lay the Groundwork: Arguably, the two biggest setbacks for the Trump administration have been the failure to pass health care legislation and the botched rollout of the travel ban. In both cases, they made the mistake of moving too quickly and not arming key constituencies with a plan to push back against foreseeable opposition.

With the travel ban, the order was dropped with little warning and the officials tasked with enforcing and explaining it were left in the dark. This meant that the order – which was sure to be controversial in the best of circumstances – was shoddily implemented, creating a swarm of negative news coverage as Trump wrapped up his first full week in power.

On health care, the push to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act in just a few weeks meant there was little time to create positive buzz around the plan and left core constituencies, like the House Freedom Caucus, out in the cold. Failing to engage groups on both the right and the left made the bill unpassable and created an embarrassing end to the White House’s first major legislative battle.

Had the White House taken more time to engage its supporters and set the stage for why these particular actions were needed, they may have been able to build support. By moving too fast, without doing the hard work of preparing and activating their stakeholders, they failed to move their agenda forward.

Failed to Recalibrate Tone: Donald Trump’s rise to political stardom came on the back of an unorthodox style that rallied millions to his cause. Unfortunately, the White House has too often forgotten that President Trump is no longer Candidate Trump. From Sean Spicer’s contentious briefings to the President’s off-the-cuff tweets, the White House has embraced a mode of communications that speaks to the core Trump voter, but has not resonated with many Americans.

When the White House deflects from criticisms of their own policies by blaming Obama administration officials or responds to questions about possible Russian influence by pointing to Hillary Clinton, it gives the impression that they’ve yet to realize that the election is over and they won. “The Buck Stops Here,” is not a communications lesson that the Trump Administration has embraced.

 [author]About Nick Horowitz: As Account Director and Editor-in-Chief at Racepoint Global, Nick Horowitz helps guide content development and strategies for clients across the agency. Nick has managed campaigns for a diverse slate of clients including ARM Holdings, Lockheed Martin, AT&T and the Kingdom of Jordan. Based in Racepoint Global’s Washington DC office, Nick has a combined background in technology-focused public relations along with expertise in public policy and government affairs.   He has a proven track record in managing campaigns which implement both social and traditional media and has secured media coverage for clients in outlets including NPR, Vox, CNN, MSNBC, Reuters, and The Washington Post. [/author]