His Majesty’s Formerly Imperial Office of Administrative Bewilderment
Sub-Subcommittee for Observing Foreign Executive Peculiarities
London (still mostly intact)

Dear Mr. President,

We trust this letter finds you well, upright, and not presently annexing Nebraska for ceremonial purposes.

It has come to the attention of this Office that you are engaged in what appears to be a most energetic form of governance. We applaud energy. We are fond of energy. We once ran an empire on it, though admittedly with mixed reviews.

However, we find ourselves somewhat puzzled by your chosen method, which appears to consist of announcing Very Large Things in Very Large Letters and then instructing everyone to be Extremely Concerned Immediately.

Is this a standard American procedure? We ask only for filing purposes.

Specifically, we are attempting to determine whether the policy objective is:

A) Security
B) Deterrence
C) Fiscal prudence
D) Existential theatre
E) A surprise quiz

From our vantage point (third floor, left of the biscuit tin), it seems that persons are being detained, transported, or sternly addressed with great administrative enthusiasm. Quite a lot of paper must be involved. We do hope someone has ordered enough folders.

Might we inquire — purely academically — what metric defines “success” in this arrangement? Is it the number of forms completed? The decibel level of campaign rallies? The square footage of fences? The frequency of the word “tremendous”?

Our analysts have attempted to follow the logic, but it keeps turning into a goose wearing a necktie and shouting about sovereignty. We do not object to geese in neckties. We simply prefer clarity.

There is also the small matter of tone. We notice that your critics are frequently described as unpatriotic, misguided, damp, or possibly French. This is bold rhetoric. We admire boldness. We do wonder, however, whether governing a republic requires the occasional tea with dissenters rather than catapulting them into rhetorical marshlands.

Another query, if we may: when one surrounds oneself with advisers, is it customary to select only those who nod vigorously? We ask because in our experience, vigorous nodding can lead to surprisingly expensive rail systems.

We are not judging, mind you. Heaven forfend. We once declared war over a pastry.

But we humbly suggest that terror — even administrative terror — is a rather inefficient management tool. It produces paperwork, headlines, and strongly worded brunches, but rarely stability.

Should your intention be to strengthen the Republic, might we recommend the following modest reforms:

  • Replace “crisis” with “process.”
  • Replace “enemy” with “constituent.”
  • Replace “immediate” with “measurable.”
  • Replace shouting with a memo.

Failing that, perhaps a sketch in which everyone runs in circles while arguing about who authorized the cheese.

We remain, as ever, respectfully baffled.

Yours in procedural astonishment,
Sir Reginald P. Wethersby, Kt. (Ret.)
Acting Assistant Deputy Under-Coordinator
Office of Mild Panic and Strong Tea