Welcome to the second week.

After wrapping up his first week as president-elect, Donald Trump has swiftly initiated changes in the capital, forecasting a contentious four years ahead.

By choosing the highly scrutinized Matt Gaetz for attorney general and aligning with billionaire Elon Musk as his ally, Trump has made it clear that he plans for a combative atmosphere.

Demonstrating a strong desire to fulfill even his most contentious campaign pledges, Trump is applying lessons learned from his previous term to take action. His Cabinet selections, surprising even to some supporters, and his implicit threats to the Senate regarding fast-tracked confirmations signal that he is acting with a newfound confidence and urgency.

As Trump proclaimed at his victory event, “Promises made, promises kept,” claiming he now has a mandate owing to victories in both the Electoral College and the popular vote.

A key question is what insights both his allies and Democratic opponents have gained as Trump 2.0 returns to Washington.

Here are four important insights gleaned from Trump’s initial actions following the election.

First, let’s rethink government structure.

Musk, the world’s wealthiest individual and seemingly the latest close associate of the president-elect, has been frequently spotted at Mar-a-Lago. He and Vivek Ramaswamy, a former GOP presidential candidate, have been appointed to lead the Department of Government Efficiency, which, although its title suggests authority, lacks formal status, staff, or budget.

However, their influence comes from their proximity to the new president.

Recently, Musk claimed he could reduce “at least $2 trillion” from the $6.75 trillion federal budget. Achieving a 30% cut in government expenditures would likely involve eliminating certain agencies, such as the Department of Education, and reducing significant expenditure items including Social Security, Medicare, and defense budgets.

Despite this, Trump has promised to maintain support for these popular entitlement programs for seniors— which account for 34% of the federal budget— and has committed to bolstering the military, which represents around 13%.

The Constitution assigns the authority over federal spending to Congress, but Trump’s campaign website mentioned plans to repeal parts of the Budget Act of 1974, which limits his ability to withhold legislative funding. He hinted at a strategy to unilaterally withdraw funds, letting potential legal challenges define whether he had the authority to do so.

A different kind of team dynamics

First and foremost: Loyalty is paramount.

Most of the top Cabinet and White House roles that took weeks to finalize after the 2016 election have been determined in days or even hours this time around. Unlike 2016, when Trump brought in some establishment Republicans based on their experience and credibility, this time, he prioritizes loyalty above all.

Of the “Big Four” Cabinet roles, Trump has named Florida Senator Marco Rubio as secretary of state, former Florida congressman Matt Gaetz as attorney general, and Fox News host Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense, leaving only the position of Treasury secretary yet to be appointed. He has also filled another seven Cabinet-level roles and over a dozen White House staff positions that do not require Senate confirmation.

Names that have stirred controversy include Gaetz, who was once under investigation by the Justice Department, and has voiced intentions to dismantle the FBI and ATF— agencies he would now lead. Former Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard has been mentioned as a candidate for the director of National Intelligence, despite her favorable remarks towards Vladimir Putin’s Russia and criticism of U.S. intelligence agencies. Additionally, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., known for his skepticism about vaccines, is being considered for secretary of Health and Human Services.

If approved, those unconventional picks could bring significant changes to the roles and missions of their respective departments. “Gaetz is going to hit the Department of Justice with a flamethrower,” predicted former Trump strategist Steve Bannon cheerfully during his podcast last week.

Is Senate confirmation necessary?

The nominees must obtain both an FBI security clearance and Senate approval.

Unless they don’t.

Trump has not waited for the clearance process to finish before announcing his picks. In Hegseth’s case, it came to light that he had been investigated in 2017 for an alleged sexual assault, which he firmly denies.

Regarding confirmations, Trump has made it apparent he expects the Republican-controlled Senate to quickly approve his choices or step aside. “Any Republican Senator seeking a coveted LEADERSHIP position in the United Senate must agree to Recess Appointments,” he declared on the social media platform Truth Social last week amid Senate Republicans electing a new leader.

Senator John Thune from South Dakota, who secured the position, mentioned that he would rather follow “the regular process.” However, he did not dismiss the idea of making recess appointments, which would necessitate the Senate remaining adjourned for 10 days. An appointee during a recess could serve for two years until the 119th Congress concludes in January 2027.

This method could bypass the Senate’s constitutional authority to confirm such appointments.

There’s a chance that Gaetz’s nomination is so controversial that it might lead some Republican senators to side with Democrats against it, especially if a report from the House Ethics Committee—which has already been concluded—becomes public.

Nevertheless, Trump’s strong influence over the Republican Party, coupled with the political risks of opposing him, makes it less likely that the Senate would reject several nominees. This means that if Gaetz faces rejection, it might facilitate the confirmation of another contentious attorney general candidate or streamline the approval process for Kennedy and other nominees.

Trump has already appointed his personal defense attorney, Todd Blanche, as deputy attorney general and designated two more lawyers who have represented him in court to important roles within the Justice Department, along with a third individual joining the senior White House team.

Democrats: Mobilizing at the State Level

With Republicans holding the presidency, the House, and the Senate, Democrats in Washington find themselves stripped of legislative power, reduced to merely opposing proposed legislation.

After Trump’s unexpected victory in 2016, large protests erupted among Democrats.

Fast forward to today, Democratic leaders seem fragmented and are reflective of what went wrong, as many supporters feel worn out and disillusioned.

The core of the Democratic pushback against Trump and the Republican Party has begun shifting toward statehouses controlled by Democrats. This strategy mirrors the actions taken by Republican governors and attorneys general in states like Texas and Florida during the first two years of President Joe Biden’s administration when Democrats held significant power in Washington.

Potential conflicts loom, particularly with Trump’s pledge to deport millions of undocumented migrants in the U.S.—a move that Democratic governors may actively resist. There are also intentions to fortify abortion rights and maintain environmental safeguards.

Immediately following Vice President Kamala Harris’s concession in this month’s election, California Governor Gavin Newsom convened a special legislative session for next month to make certain that California’s laws remain resilient against potential federal actions. He is also advocating for increased funding for the state attorney general to counter any federal demands from the newly appointed administration.

Meanwhile, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Colorado Governor Jared Polis recently launched an initiative called Governors Safeguarding Democracy, aimed at coordinating responses among Democratic-led states against Trump’s policies.

Other notable Democratic governors who might play crucial roles include Andy Beshear from Kentucky, Wes Moore from Maryland, Josh Shapiro from Pennsylvania, and Gretchen Whitmer from Michigan.

Interestingly, all of them might have ambitions for a presidential run in the future.