Few will have missed David Frum’s dystopian cover story for the Atlantic, but many of the people passing it around on social media may not remember that Frum coined the term “axis of evil” as a George W Bush speechwriter. Backing away from his support for the Iraq war for over a decade, Frum has finally completed the transition from loyal rightwing foot soldier to Trump critic.

He’s not alone. One subplot that has gone unnoticed in this week of outrages is how much discomfort Trump’s executive orders on immigration are causing in segments of the right.

In particular, some libertarians are looking queasily at Trump’s discriminatory executive orders, his reckless sabre-rattling, and his big-spending plans and venting their concerns publicly. But even diehard religious conservatives and culture warriors are wondering who is in charge in Trump’s inner circle, and whether they really know what they are doing.

This may not last – already some of the most bitter critics of Trump during the campaign have decided to throw their lot in with him, because ultimately, they hate the left even more.

Publication: The New York Times

Author: Ross Douthat is the conservative voice on the New York Times’s op-ed page. He’s also a convert to Catholicism whose conservative zeal possibly outstrips the pope’s, a master of the upper-middlebrow reactionary style originated by William F Buckley, and the owner of a Twitter account specializing in bad predictions and more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger sermonizing. On the few occasions where all of this isn’t simply unbearable, Douthat can surprise his readers by being right.

Why you should read it: Against the apocalyptic grain of so much that has been written since Trump took the wheel, Douthat points to signs of incompetence, unpopularity and instability, and wonders how long he’ll last.

Extract: “But nothing about Trumpian populism to date suggests that it has either the political skill or the popularity required to grind its opposition down. In which case, instead of Putin, the more relevant case study might be former President Mohamed Morsi of Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood leader whose brief tenure was defined both by chronic self-sabotage and by the active resistance of the Egyptian bureaucracy and intelligentsia, which rendered governance effectively impossible.”

Publication: Bleeding Heart Libertarians

Author: Steve Horwitz is an academic economist at St Lawrence University in New York. Along with the Austrian School, Horwitz has long identified as a “bleeding heart libertarian”, attuned to social justice issues as well as the need to shrink government. This position might be hard for progressives to wrap their heads around, but Horwitz does his best to explain it to a wider public as a contributor to the bleeding heart libertarians blog.

Why you should read it: Horwitz is frustrated, and more than a little alarmed, that his fellow libertarians are not taking Trump seriously as a unique threat to their vision of freedom. He takes the opportunity to offer them a few home truths, and to urge them to at least consider cooperation with the left against a common enemy.

Extract: “Too many libertarians hate the left more than they love liberty. One response I’ve heard to my pushing back on their take on Trump is that ‘well Obama/Clinton was/would have been worse!’ No, actually he wasn’t and I don’t think she would have been. Yes, they might have expanded the regulatory state, but there would be no revival of torture, no wall, no registry, no trade war, no attempt to muzzle the media, etc. Trump is a tin-pot dictator wannabe (and starting to be), without an ounce of knowledge or respect for constitutional limits on government, who threatens the foundational institutions of the liberal order. Obama was not. Clinton is not. I confess to some schadenfreude myself as the left squirms in the aftermath of a defeat they didn’t see coming. But every time Trump opens his mouth, the fundamental threat to liberty he and his supporters embody overwhelms that. Now, more than ever, libertarians need good-hearted, open-minded people on the left as allies in an attempt to preserve the things we agree on. We should never let our frustrations with the left become more important than preserving the liberal order.”

Publication: Reason

Author: Nick Gillespie is a big wheel in the Libertarian movement. He’s the editor-in-chief at Reason, and is a Daily Beast columnist. Naturally he is on good terms with Reason’s backers, the Kochs.

Why you should read it: Gillespie adds to the sense that Trump’s recent actions are making libertarians uneasy. Surveying examples of Republicans who have voiced skepticism about Trump’s measures, Gillespie makes sure to hammer home the message that Trump’s executive orders don’t appear to have any connection with the actual sources of terrorism. (It’s a similar point that the liberal wonks at Vox appeared to be driving at earlier this week, and in a since-deleted tweet saying he “picked the wrong countries”). In any case, those looking for slow cracks on the right might start here.

Extract: “Criticism is almost always more important when it comes from within a person’s political party or ideology. It’s a sharp sign that the person being criticized has wandered into some deep and dangerous territory. That’s certainly the case with Trump and his orders on sanctuary cities … and on immigration and refugee policy. The laws were not just poorly phrased and timed, they clearly will not work to address the basic issues they ostensibly are meant to ameliorate. As Anthony Fisher noted here earlier today, the US embassy in Iraq has said that Trump’s action is a recruitment tool for jihadists, as pro-American Middle Easterners realize they’re being hung out to dry. As for keeping America safe from terrorists entering the country as refugees, the fact is the country has an incredibly safe record.”

Publication: Commentary

Author: A couple of months ago we offered some faint praise in our bio of Mr Rothman, and he was kind enough to give us a shout-out on Twitter. Hi again, Noah! He’s still the assistant online editor at Commentary, and he’s still not sold on Trump.

Why you should read it: Some viral conspiracy theories suggested that the shambolic implementation of Trump’s poorly conceived executive orders on immigration were part of some 11-dimensional chess game. Rothman shows more gorm: sometimes chaos is just chaos.

Extract: “The businessman-president is supposed to be, above all else, competent. There was none of that evident in the terrible implementation of the president’s executive order banning entry into the U.S. of not just refugees but visa holders and legal permanent residents from seven Islamic world nations. The merits of this policy are dubious even to those Americans who believe in an abundance of caution when it comes to preventing potential terrorists from infiltrating the United States. Merits aside, the implementation of this policy was stunningly inept.”

Publication: National Review

Author: David French bemoaned Trump’s nomination, threatened to run as an independent candidate against him, and subsequently complained about his supporters harassing him. Apparently time heals all wounds.

Why you should read it: Read this as a reminder: even when we occasionally agree, most progressives’ values fundamentally depart from those of conservatives, and they can get over their antipathy for someone on their own side far more quickly than they can get over their suspicion of the left, and their obsessions. French shows us how flexible the meaning of the #NeverTrump movement actually is – he celebrates Trump’s consummation of one of his key campaign messages, and indulges in some seedy xenophobia, as his publication desperately tries to stay relevant.

Extract: “Trump’s order was not signed in a vacuum. Look at the Heritage Foundation’s interactive timeline of Islamist terror plots since 9/11. Note the dramatic increase in planned and executed attacks since 2015. Now is not the time for complacency. Now is the time to take a fresh look at our border-control and immigration policies. Trump’s order isn’t a betrayal of American values. Applied correctly and competently, it can represent a promising fresh start and a prelude to new policies that protect our nation while still maintaining American compassion and preserving American friendships.”