Opinion > Opinions - White House The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill Look out: Trump has entered his legacy-seeking phase by Matt Lewis, opinion contributor - 03/06/26 9:30 AM ET by Matt Lewis, opinion contributor - 03/06/26 9:30 AM ET Share ✕ LinkedIn LinkedIn Email Email NOW PLAYING President Trump appears to have entered a new phase of his presidency: legacy-building. I don’t mean the quiet sort, where historians argue about your domestic agenda four decades later. I mean the flashy kind, with fancy new ballrooms, expanded maps and preferably a war or two. This may explain several recent Trumpian enthusiasms: his revival of the idea of acquiring Greenland, his addition of his own name to the now-shuttered Kennedy Center, and the dubious decision to go to war with Iran. Historically, presidents judged “great” tend to have a few things going for them: They expand the country, they get impressive architecture named after them, or they preside over a war. Think of Washington, Lincoln, and the Roosevelts. Trump, always intensely aware of ratings, rankings and branding, appears to be shopping for the same items for his resume. Oddly enough, that could be reassuring. A president thinking about legacy is a president who at least suspects his presidency will end. But that doesn’t make this safe. Legacy-building creates both good and bad incentives. If history tends to elevate wartime leaders, a president might be tempted to reverse-engineer greatness by finding himself a war. Trump’s abrupt turn toward confrontation with Iran contradicts much of his earlier rhetoric about avoiding “forever wars.” And given with his lack of a coherent justification, it appears that instinct and ego rather than strategy are driving his decisions. Trump has always been more of a gut guy. But he is definitely prone to symbolism, reputation, and historical stature. And as the reality of lame-duck status sets in, he seems to be running a hurry-up offense — settling all family business like Michael Corleone at the end of “The Godfather” with dramatic moves that he hopes will secure his place in the history books. It is dangerous to try and manufacture greatness. And as the Good Book warns, “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” Judging by the administration’s explanations for the war with Iran, the vision thing is in short supply. Perhaps this is because you can’t simply tell the American people you’re bombing Iran to project stature. In less than a week, Trump and his team have offered several different reasons for going to war. One is that Iran was about to attack first. The evidence for this appears to consist mainly of presidential vibes. “If we didn’t do it, they were going to attack first,” Trump said. “I felt strongly about that.” Once upon a time, conservatives liked to say that facts don’t care about feelings. Trump, however, governs by feelings — particularly the feeling that his name should be remembered for centuries. Secretary of State Marco Rubio floated another idea: Israel was about to attack Iran, which would have prompted Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces. America, therefore, struck first. Yet another explanation is that the strikes were necessary because Iran was “within two weeks” of having a nuclear weapon — the same program Trump previously assured us he had already “obliterated” with bombings last June. There is also the convoluted argument, advanced by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, that America needed to go to war to destroy Iran’s conventional missiles — because they were using them to buy time to build a nuclear weapon. The least flattering excuse offered up was that Trump wanted vengeance. Speaking of the strike that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Trump told ABC: “I got him before he got me. They tried twice … I got him first.” And the most sophisticated theory, quietly circulated by Trump’s defenders, is that this and January’s Venezuela operation are really about containing China . Trump himself has not made this argument — possibly because he hasn’t thought of it yet. Meanwhile, there are no clearly defined objectives, which means there isn’t much of an exit strategy either. If the goal is regime change — something occasionally hinted at — it is difficult to imagine that happening without boots on the ground. Air power is many things, but a reliable regime-toppler it is not. Ask the Germans about the Blitz or the Americans about Vietnam. One of the virtues of requiring a president to persuade Congress to declare war is that persuasion requires planning. You have to organize your thoughts before you organize an invasion. The process forces you to plan for contingencies. Trump is not much