Donald Trump is a man full of good ideas. Take his schedule this coming week as an example. On Friday, Trump hightailed it out of a confrontational United States to begin his auspicious first foreign trip as president. Good idea.

Previous US presidents have visited either Canada or Mexico on their initial ventures out of the country but – as everyone knows – you can drive to those countries from the United States, so they don’t really count. Trump, on other hand, will visit Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the Vatican on his first departure from the US, proving once and for all that he’s a better president.

While on this undrivable trip, Trump will also pursue the modest effort of uniting Islam, Judaism, and Christianity in the common cause of fighting “intolerance” and radical extremism, according to White House officials. What a good idea. And why did no one think of this before?

The good ideas keep coming. According to his National Security Advisor HR McMaster, Trump is set to deliver an “inspiring but direct speech on the need to confront radical ideology” in a major address to about 50 leaders of Muslim-majority countries assembling in Saudi Arabia for his official visit. And this is one of those good ideas that just gets better because Trump’s important lecture concerning Islam in the contemporary world has reportedly been written by none other than Trump’s senior advisor Stephen Miller. Brilliant.

Stephen Miller is, of course, well known as one of most strident anti-Muslim voices in an already anti-Muslim-oriented administration. Miller was the first national coordinator of the Terrorism Awareness Project, an initiative of David Horowitz’s extreme right-wing Freedom Center. (The Southern Poverty Law Center calls Horowitz “the godfather of the modern anti-Muslim movement.”)

The 31-year-old Miller is also acknowledged as a key architect of Trump’s Executive Order 13769, the initial “Muslim ban”. When that order was subsequently challenged in the courts, Miller famously said on the television show Face the Nation that “the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned,” proving that he too is a man full of good, though perhaps rather autocratic and even somewhat bigoted, ideas.

Meanwhile, are we really supposed to forget that Trump is the man who told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that “Islam hates us”? Or that he is the man who has called for a “complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”? Or that he signed the executive orders barring entry of nationals from those Muslim-majority nations? So, now we are supposed to believe that Trump suddenly has the best interests of the Muslim world at heart?

In the long run, I suspect that Trump’s address, which purportedly aims to mirror but outperform Barack Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech, will be full of both platitudinous and hectoring moments. Like Obama’s speech, its details I suspect will also be soon forgotten.

Obama’s address embraced a soaring rhetoric of change, but the Obama administration cautiously preserved the status quo in action. Despite what they want us to believe, the Trump administration seems to be operating in the same vein. Trump’s actions, in other words, should be considered before his sometimes-clownish words.

Saudi Arabia, for example, is about to close a deal with the United States on a weapons pact worth more than $300bn over 10 years. Human rights organizations are justifiably up in arms over the arrangement. Saudi Arabia is deeply involved in Yemen’s civil strife, and while all sides in Yemen’s war are guilty of gross humanitarian abuses, Saudi Arabia’s military operations have caused far more than their share of civilian casualties and war misery. Currently, 7 million people in Yemen are confronting starvation because of the war.

The Trump administration has repeatedly sent conflicting messages regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict to both Israelis and Palestinians. This muddle may appear to new political watchers as contradictory – the latest confusion concerned whether the Western Wall is considered occupied territory or part of Israel – but such a stance also follows a long American legacy of operating in the ambiguities to keep an unsustainable status quo alive as long as possible.

Story continues