Following Donald Trump’s inauguration as the 47th President of the United States, students and faculty felt largely bewildered and distressed, especially in response to the inaugural speeches and the flurry of executive orders that followed.

Professor of Government Allen Springer noted that many of the key issues highlighted in Trump’s inaugural address were predictable, such as immigration and the economy. Other issues, particularly those concerning foreign policy, were not.

“There were things like the question of Panama that I was a little surprised came up,” Springer said. “I’m not sure really where he’s going with that, and I don’t know that I would put it in my own inaugural speech, even if it was something I believed strongly in.… The language of manifest destiny is sort of a throwback to the mid-19th century.”

Springer also expressed surprise and dismay towards Trump’s usage of dark and vindictive rhetoric in his inaugural address.

“I think [the address] was much more aggressive and bitter than I would have anticipated,” Springer said. “There was more negativity in that speech, certainly, than I’ve ever heard in an inaugural speech. I really think that most presidents, regardless of their feelings, try to put themselves more in the center of American attitudes on issues. I just think that he came off as still holding grudges, and there was still that sense of the need for revenge.… That was disappointing.”

Professor of Government Janet Martin similarly was surprised by the recurring theme of retribution in Trump’s inaugural address.

She found his decorum during the address and the speeches that followed lacking in respect for the sanctity of the occasion.

Not all took issue with Trump’s inaugural address. Bowdoin College Conservatives leader Zak Asplin ’27 found the overall tone to be positive and encouraging.

“I thought the speech was quite unifying. There were certainly comments of, ‘No matter your race, no matter your creed, no matter your background, no matter whether you voted for me or not, we’re going to unite the country for success,’” Asplin said. “The first half of the speech was quite sad as he described the crises that America is facing, but I think it was accurate. You have to properly diagnose the situation.”

Conversely, the Bowdoin Democrats co-leader Natalie Emerson ’27 agreed that the tone of Trump’s inaugural address contained less of a dark tone than anticipated.

“I thought it was an overall much more optimistic tone than his speech eight years ago, if optimistic in a sense of national dominance,” Emerson said. “It was very nationalistic, which was frightening.… I came away thinking, ‘Oh my God, we’re gonna burn all our international partnerships.’”

Springer noted an unprecedented challenge in trying to determine what the future now holds.

“I don’t think I’ve ever been less certain about what [is] likely to happen, not even six months from now, but a month from now,” Springer said. “Whatever he does is going to have such a tremendous impact on real people, and it’s going to raise so much anxiety among people who may not even be targeted directly by anything he does.”

Many of the executive orders signed by Trump on his first day did not direct singular alterations to federal policy but contained large numbers of different and  substantial changes. Martin highlighted that this move is largely without precedent.

“That is just not typical. You wouldn’t have a signing ceremony and just say, ‘I’m going to sign when 87 things have just changed, or 78 things have just changed,’” Martin said. “It’s not transparent in any way…. There [isn’t] a sense of what the details are.”

Asplin expressed confidence that Trump’s actions would herald an America on the rise.

“I see it as a successful day one [in terms of] the executive orders and agreements that were signed,” Asplin said. “If you look at general consumer confidence since Trump’s election victory, and certainly since the inauguration, it is massively on the up…. That’s really exciting, and I think you’re going to see four years of real economic success.”

Citing the recency of President Trump’s inauguration, Senior Vice President for Finance and Administration and Treasurer Matthew Orlando declined to comment on how the College might plan to respond to President Trump’s proposed economic plans.

Amid feelings of fear and distress in response to Trump’s inauguration, Emerson stressed that action is the best response.

“Without knowing what’s going to happen, it’s hard to understand actions to take or things to speak on,” Emerson said. “But I think we …  [can] focus on local issues and things that we can impact in our communities and see what happens on the federal stage.… Do not disassociate, because apathy is the biggest danger to democracy.”