With Bannon’s Ouster, Question Remains Whether His Agenda Will Be Erased, Too

On many issues, Mr. Trump and Mr. Bannon are philosophical soul mates. But their relationship curdled over Mr. Trump’s resentment that his staff member was taking credit for his election victory.

Mark Landler, Maggie Haberman, The New York Times
Send in e-mailSend in e-mail
White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon at the White House in Washington, U.S., June 1, 2017.
White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon at the White House in Washington, U.S., June 1, 2017. Credit: JOSHUA ROBERTS/REUTERS
Mark Landler, Maggie Haberman, The New York Times

WASHINGTON — In his West Wing office, Stephen K. Bannon kept a chart listing trade actions — on China, steel and autos — that the Trump White House planned to roll out, week by week, through the fall. Now that Mr. Bannon, the president’s chief strategist, has been pushed out, the question is whether his agenda will be erased along with him.

It is not just trade: Mr. Bannon has had a strong voice on issues from climate change and China to immigration and the war in Afghanistan. He has been an unyielding advocate for a visceral brand of nationalism, and though he lost as often as he won in policy debates, his departure could tip the balance on some fiercely contested issues toward a more mainstream approach, even if the core tenets of his philosophy survive.

Mr. Bannon’s dorm-like office functioned as a sort of command center for the administration’s nationalist wing. He met there with a coterie of mostly young, like-minded colleagues, planning strategy and plotting against foes, from Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, to Gary D. Cohn, the director of the National Economic Council.

Some of Mr. Bannon’s protégés have already been sidelined while others may depart soon, people in the White House said. He will no longer have access to briefing papers or sit in meetings, like a regular Tuesday morning session in the Roosevelt Room where he sparred with Mr. Cohn and other officials over the timing of trade moves against China.

Still, there are reasons to believe Mr. Bannon’s core worldview will outlast him. On Friday, the United States announced it would open an investigation into China’s alleged theft of technology from American companies. The decision, only days after Mr. Trump formally asked his trade representative to look into the issue, suggested the United States would continue to pursue a hard economic line against China, even without Mr. Bannon.

On immigration, Mr. Trump listens to another adviser, Stephen Miller, who pushed the administration’s travel ban on Muslims. Mr. Miller has strengthened his position in the West Wing, in part by building a rapport over 18 months with Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Mr. Miller, who has been seen by some as a member of the Bannon camp, chafes at suggestions that he is a creation of Mr. Bannon.

“Trump and Bannon share similar views on these issues,” said Chris Ruddy, a longtime friend of Mr. Trump who said he advised both the president and Mr. Bannon to part ways. “The big difference is that Donald Trump is much more practical and pragmatic than Steve.”

Even if Mr. Bannon had hung on to his job, it is clear his bomb-throwing style was not going to work well in a West Wing under the control of Mr. Trump’s new chief of staff, John F. Kelly. Mr. Kelly, a retired Marine Corps general, has moved to tighten discipline and access to the president, cracking down on a culture where aides often loitered around the Oval Office without appointments, interrupting scheduled meetings to bend Mr. Trump’s ear on their pet issues.

Mr. Kelly, officials said, has particular disdain for people sounding off on sensitive national security issues without background or expertise, as Mr. Bannon did when he told a liberal publication, The American Prospect, that the United States had no military option against North Korea.

Although he was saying what virtually every military commander believes — that a military attack on the North would prompt a catastrophic reprisal on the South — his comments contradicted Mr. Trump’s bellicose warning to the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, that he would rain “fire and fury” down on him.

Mr. Bannon, a former Navy officer who spent most of his career in banking and media, also immersed himself in how the United States should wage the military campaign in Afghanistan. He pushed unorthodox proposals, like substituting mercenaries for American soldiers, which were greeted with disdain by military commanders but appealed to the president.

His departure helps those in the administration who favor a more interventionist military approach, whether on Syria, where Mr. Bannon opposed Mr. Trump’s missile strike on President Bashar al-Assad, or on Afghanistan.

On Friday, Mr. Trump met with his national security team at Camp David, and has all but decided on a more conventional plan that would keep nearly 4,000 American troops in the country. But, prompted in part by Mr. Bannon’s persistent questioning, the United States will place more demands on the Afghan government, according to officials.

Mr. Bannon’s departure was a victory for Mr. Cohn and Steven Mnuchin, secretary of the Treasury, who tangled with him on trade, as well as whether the United States should withdraw from the Paris climate accord. Mr. Cohn argued against the withdrawal — as did the president’s daughter Ivanka — but Mr. Bannon prevailed by appealing to Mr. Trump’s nationalist instincts.

Still, Mr. Cohn’s future is also in question. Officials said he is lobbying for Mr. Trump to appoint him chairman of the Federal Reserve to replace Janet L. Yellen. An erroneous report that Mr. Cohn was leaving the White House in the wake of Mr. Trump’s statements on the deadly clashes in Charlottesville was enough to roil stock markets on Thursday.

Similarly, Mr. Bannon’s departure has uncertain implications for General McMaster. The two men clashed bitterly over Afghanistan, and some officials suspected Mr. Bannon was behind a campaign in right-wing media to discredit General McMaster by saying he was anti-Israel.

With Mr. Bannon out of the picture, General McMaster will have less internal resistance to his proposals for Afghanistan. But Mr. Trump himself has expressed deep skepticism about an open-ended American military commitment in that country. And Mr. Bannon is likely to turn up the pressure on General McMaster from his perch at his old employer, Breitbart News, where he is again the executive chairman.

For his part, Mr. Bannon predicted he would be far more effective outside the White House. He plans to use Breitbart to champion all the themes he pushed while in government. He also anticipates he will continue talking to Mr. Trump, who friends say often prizes advice he gets from outsiders or on cable news shows more than the guidance he gets from his staff. Mr. Bannon and Mr. Trump had an easy chemistry, a crucial factor for the president with his aides, until the relationship frayed.

In his eight months in government, Mr. Bannon said, he got a crash course in how the bureaucracy functions, which he will be able to put to use to advance his positions on trade, taxes and China.

Critics of Mr. Bannon said his influence on Mr. Trump’s positions had been overstated: The president’s views on trade and military intervention date to the 1980s. Other officials said Mr. Bannon’s policy portfolio was never as broad as his Wizard-of-Oz profile suggested, while some faulted him for not bringing in the allies he needed to get more done.

“He will temporarily be more dangerous on the outside, but he still won’t be able to get anything done on the inside, and that’s the problem,” said Roger Stone, an informal adviser to the president for decades, who has recently become deeply critical of Mr. Bannon.

Some White House veterans said Mr. Bannon should not underestimate the value of geographic proximity.

“I don’t think Bannon can have more influence on policy from the outside, whatever he does, simply because he won’t be at the table to make the case when decisions are made,” said David Axelrod, who served as President Barack Obama’s chief strategist and has written about his frustration over his diminished access to Mr. Obama after he left the White House in 2011.

“A lot depends on Trump,” Mr. Axelrod continued. “If Bannon and Breitbart are spinning him up, Trump may dial him up on a regular basis. That may give him leverage.”

As always, the wild card in assessing this White House is the president himself. On many issues, he and Mr. Bannon are philosophical soul mates. But their relationship curdled over Mr. Trump’s resentment that his staff member was taking credit for his election victory.

Mr. Trump reached out to Mr. Bannon on Friday after the split was made public, but the two did not speak, according to White House officials.

On Saturday, the complexities of Mr. Trump’s relationship with Mr. Bannon were on vivid display. “I want to thank Steve Bannon for his service,” the president tweeted. “He came to the campaign during my run against Crooked Hillary – it was great! Thanks S”

Click the alert icon to follow topics:



Automatic approval of subscriber comments.

Subscribe today and save 40%

Already signed up? LOG IN


Trump and Netanyahu at the White House in Washington, in 2020.

Three Years Later, Israelis Find Out What Trump Really Thought of Netanyahu

German soldier.

The Rival Jewish Spies Who Almost Changed the Course of WWII

Rio. Not all Jewish men wear black hats.

What Does a Jew Look Like? The Brits Don't Seem to Know

Galon. “I’m coming to accomplish a specific mission: to increase Meretz’s strength and ensure that the party will not tread water around the electoral threshold. If Meretz will be large enough, it will be the basis for a Jewish-Arab partnership.” Daniel Tchetchik

'I Have No Illusions About Ending the Occupation, but the Government Needs the Left'

Soldiers using warfare devices made by the Israeli defense electronics company Elbit Systems.

Russia-Ukraine War Catapults Israeli Arms Industry to Global Stage

Flame and smoke rise during an Israeli air strike, amid Israel-Gaza fighting, in Gaza City August 6, 2022.

Israel Should End Gaza Operation Now, if It Can