Here’s how it works: First, the Trump administration, often with congressional Republicans, enacts a policy that harms a large number of Americans. Then local or state allies of the administration raise objections. Ultimately, the administration and Congress create a carve-out that protects a small number of favored constituents while leaving most of the damaging policy in place.

It is splendidly hypocritical, of course: If Trump’s agenda is as wonderful as he says, his loyal supporters should surely get to benefit from it as well. But I think it also contains an important lesson for anyone trying to stop Trump’s agenda: Keep calling attention to the substance of that agenda, because it is deeply unpopular — and even Trump’s allies know it’s unpopular.

The pattern first appeared during the attempts to repeal Obamacare last year. The repeal bills would have sharply cut federal spending on health insurance. Yet not every part of the country would have experienced a cut. Most blue states would have suffered large reductions (Trumpism for thee…), while many red states would actually have received more federal subsidies (…but not for me).

Then came the tax law passed in December. Not only does it shift billions of federal dollars from blue states to red, it does so partly through duplicity.

The clearest example is a new tax on colleges with an endowment of at least $500,000 per full-time student. It was aimed at bastions of liberalism, like Harvard, M.I.T., Stanford and Amherst. But members of Congress eventually realized that the endowment tax would also apply to Berea College, a small institution in Kentucky with a nice-sized endowment.