The first part, i.e. “uninterested,” hardly needs elaboration: President Trump shows so little interest in learning the details that his tweets on Obamacare make little sense. Could he explain to us what his beautiful Trumpcare would look like? No. He can threaten, but his threats have become self-contradictory.
Regarding the second part: Why would I accuse our 45th president of being way too little disinterested? “Disinterested” means impartial; it means not having an axe to grind, not calculating to seek personal advantage. Disinterestedness is thus good because a government of “laws, not men” (as they used to say) won’t work well at all without it. The structure of the Constitution accounts for interests and factions and strives to control and limit them. But if the executive acts like a thug, and the other branches don’t act decisively to repudiate the bad actors, we are in trouble. I am not expecting the 71-year-old man to change or learn. Actually truth be told I am worried that if he did learn any new tricks we would be in even more of a fix.
Note: I am interested in upholding the distinction between “disinterested” as unbiased and impartial, i.e. not moved by consideration of personal advantage, and “uninterested,” which means “not interested” or “unmoved.” I realize that usages change, but maintaining the distinction with a difference serves a good purpose here.