Another week of the Trump administration, another week of chaos.

It’s hard to know where to start. Even if one takes the president at his word, that he is trying to create “efficiency in government,” the means have no relation to the ends — and that’s even before the on-again, off-again tariffs and aid to Ukraine suspended and then magically restored.

To begin where Trump’s orders did, there’s the campaign to destroy USAID, the Agency for International Development — our principal source of non-military aid to the rest of the world. In addition to terminating most staff and abrogating contracts already in effect, Trump ordered the Washington office closed, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio claims to be administrating the program’s remnants directly.

Millions of words have been written about these brazen moves, with little attempt to explain what USAID does, and why it’s been around since 1961.

Shortly after President John Kennedy took office, he asked Congress to consolidate a variety of uncoordinated and often ineffective foreign aid programs under one roof, with USAID the result. Since then, it’s been America’s means of projecting “soft power” to influence the world, and provide emergency aid in cases of civil war and famine abroad.

China is the largest purveyor of “soft power,” building railroads and highways around Africa and elsewhere, gaining influence that can’t be won through selling weapons. Russia can no longer afford to match China’s moves.

It could be argued that U.S. military and foreign aid budgets are out of whack. We now spend more than $800 billion annually for the Pentagon, against $40 billion for USAID — 5% of military spending. In fact, the entire USAID budget is less than the 6% Trump asked the Pentagon to cut. Since Republicans in Congress are already trying to increase military spending and cut domestic spending, however, it’s safe to call this a non-starter.

The USAID contracts are the first legal battle to reach the Supreme Court, which upheld the District Court judge’s authority to order restoring the contracts. The administration is now calling back supposedly fired workers to process payments.

What’s been accomplished beyond extreme disruption and an international loss of confidence in America’s ability to keep its word is hard to see.

Then there’s the summary firings, which will eventually be found mostly or entirely illegal, since Trump seems bent on violating both labor law and specific contract rights. Last week, he abrogated a contract with the union representing TSA (Transportation Security Administration), part of the newest Cabinet agency, the Department of Homeland Security.

Last year, the Biden administration agreed to a contract bringing pay for TSA workers up to levels comparable to other federal employees, which Trump now claims to have torn up, asserting that the union can be brushed aside. It’s possible, though not likely, a court will find cancellation of the most recent contract legal, but there’s no way a president can single-handedly decertify a union.

Ironically, this brings us full circle to where Ronald Reagan began with the now-defunct union for air traffic controllers, PATCO, shortly after he took office in 1981.

In August, citing poor working conditions, PATCO members walked out, even though — then as now — federal workers don’t have the right to strike. Reagan fired them all, marking another landmark in the declining fortunes of organized labor, only lately and tentatively reversed. No one questioned the legality of Reagan’s actions.

Now, we have a president attempting to destroy a union without legal authority.

Unlike the USAID contracts, it will take the courts a while to sort out which employee terminations were legal and which were not.

Whatever happens, it won’t produce “efficiency,” the alleged goal. Random firings throughout government, with form letters alleging poor performance without ever citing an example, can only demoralize employees and lead to worse performance by the entire agency.

To reduce the workforce, Trump should have gone to Congress and cut positions through the budget — the only way it could actually work. But in a second term, that’s not his way.

Only if you believe we don’t need accurate weather forecasting, that it doesn’t matter who processes millions of Social Security checks and Medicare payments, or whether the national parks open for visitors, can one see these “Department of Government Efficiency” edicts as leading anywhere but down.

There will likely be more rounds of firings and contract terminations by the time you read this. But in a larger sense, the two-month-old Trump administration may be running out of time.