Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
Analysis
Canada’s political parties are united in offering plans to hit back against Donald Trump
Albertan Keith Gardner has been a member of the New Democratic Party his entire adult life. He’s the provincial riding association president for Lethbridge West, and he has worked on previous federal campaigns for the NDP. But in this year’s federal election, which takes place Monday, April 28, he’s voting for Mark Carney and the Liberal Party — and the reason is Donald Trump.
“There’s a kind of existential moment going on,” Gardner says. “I think the Trump piece elevates the stakes of the election.”
The election has been dominated by concerns like Gardner’s. Trump has shaped voter intentions, party strategies, and policy platforms. The two parties most likely to win, the Liberals and Conservatives, broadly agree on what needs to be done. Each supports reciprocal tariffs, reducing internal trade barriers, using government procurement to buy Canadian, and building infrastructure. They are also promising support for workers affected by Trump’s tariffs and Canadian counter-tariffs. While the parties’ methods differ — to varying degrees — the message is clear: Canada must protect its economy from its largest trading partner.
Canada looks inward — and plans to build
The Liberal Party’s platform mentions Trump eight times. Carney argues that Trump’s economic program is restructuring the global trade system, a move that threatens to hit Canada hard since the US-Canada trade relationship is worth roughly $1 trillion a year.
The Liberals are promising to reduce internal trade barriers, lowering costs by “up to 15%,” and build an internal trade corridor so goods, services, and workers can move freely and easily. To do so, they’ll undertake “nation-building projects,” including ports, airports, highways, and high-speed rail in Ontario and Quebec. They’ll also “build out” Canada’s east-west electricity grid.
Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative Party mention Trump six times in their platform. Their plan aims to “rebuild [Canada’s] economy and open new markets so we can reduce our reliance on the US and stand up to Trump from a position of strength.” The crux of the platform rests on fast-tracking approvals for infrastructure, including rail, roads, and power transmission lines — projects they say Canada can’t build now because of regulations.
The Conservatives are also all-in on pipelines, vowing to repeal the Trudeau-era Bill C-69, which requires impact assessment reviews for major projects. The Tories call it the “No More Development” law, claiming it “makes it impossible to build the mines, pipelines, and other major energy infrastructure Canada needs.” Carney supports the law. In contrast to the Liberals, the Conservatives are pledging to eliminate the emissions cap on oil and gas production and double oil production in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Looking outward … a bit
Foreign trade is getting less attention than internal trade, but the front-runners have some plans for boosting external commerce. The Conservatives will pursue a free trade and mobility agreement, CANZUK, with the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. They would also push to export “cleaner” Canadian resources under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which allows countries to transfer carbon credits across borders.
While the Conservatives look to CANZUK, the Liberals are talking about new deals with MERCOSUR in South America and ASEAN in Asia. The Liberals would launch a CA$25 billion export credit facility to help foreign buyers finance Canadian goods. They would also fund efforts to make better use of existing trade, including Canada’s free trade deal with Europe and its deal with trans-Pacific states. The latter captures Australia and New Zealand but is a more limited deal than what the Conservatives are promising.
Weathering the Trump storm
After Trump leveled tariffs on Canadian goods, Canada hit back with reciprocal tariffs. The Liberals promise that “every dollar” from those duties will be used to protect workers and businesses. They’re speeding up and easing access to employment insurance – which, as the governing party, they started to do pre-election. They’re also looking to launch a CA$2 billion fund for the country’s auto sector for worker upskilling, shoring up the domestic supply chain, and protecting industry jobs from layoffs. Their plan includes an “All-in-Canada network” for making car parts, reducing the frequency with which components must cross the border.
The Conservatives will maintain “existing government supports” for the auto industry while removing sales tax on vehicles made in Canada for as long as the Trump tariffs are in effect. They’re promising a “Keep Canadians Working Fund” that uses reciprocal tariff money to support workers affected by the duties. The party says it will also “drastically” reduce the number of temporary foreign workers the country admits and ensure Canadian workers get a first crack at jobs, which could strengthen domestic wages for citizens and permanent residents.
Can the parties get it done, and will it be enough?
It’s easy to make promises during an election. It’s harder to deliver on them. Graeme Thompson, a senior analyst with Eurasia Group's global macro-geopolitics practice, says that some promises are easier to deliver on than others.
“I think internal trade is a low-hanging fruit if you can get the provinces aligned, which it seems like they are,” he says. “There is no question that non-tariff barriers within Canada are an impediment to domestic trade.”
But even if the government does deliver on that, the shadow of the US will continue to loom large.
“The problem is that in absolute terms, internal trade is minute compared to the value gained from trade with the United States,” Thompson says. “So, a hit to the Canadian economy because of tariffs could only very partially be recouped by domestic efficiencies in terms of trade.”
He says recouping losses by boosting external trade with non-US countries is easier said than done. Canada has other trade agreements, but Canadian businesses are still attracted to the US market, which is large, rich, next door, and culturally familiar.
“Until that changes, it’s going to be hard for Canada to diversify its trade by governmental efforts.” Thompson’s waiting to see if industry follows the government’s lead. “Until then, it’s just talk.”
For all that talk, whichever party wins next week will be expected to deliver. Gardner hopes that will be the Liberals, kept in check by the NDP. Looking south, he says, “One of the things I think we can do is we can have a federal government that clearly stands up, that preserves the things about Canadian society that we have achieved together, protects our notions of person and peacekeeping, protects public health care, protects all these things that frankly the NDP helped create and instill into Canadian political culture.”
It could be the Liberals who win, or it could be the Conservatives. But, either way, the message from voters during the election has been clear: They want a government that takes a firm stance against Trump’s threats.
On Monday, I received a text message that I assumed was spam. Today, I realized it was a very real survey from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asking me if I was Jewish – and that it was sent to everyone on Barnard College’s payroll.
Background: Barnard College, a women’s college affiliated with Columbia University where I am a teacher’s assistant, has been under investigation by the EEOC for antisemitism amid frequent protests on campus over the last year. The faculty was not informed that their personal phone numbers had been sent to the government, but the school maintains that the EEOC was “legally entitled to obtain the contact information of Barnard’s employees” to conduct its investigation.
The Microsoft Form – which anyone can fill out if they have the link – first asks faculty whether they are Jewish or Israeli, their department, and their superiors’ names. It then asks whether they have experienced anything in a list of antisemitic events, ranging from “unwelcome comments, jokes, or discussions” and “harassment, intimidation, aggressive actions” to “antisemitic or anti-Israeli protests.”
Incidents of antisemitism have been documented since protests broke out on Columbia’s campus last year. But, so far, the government’s investigations into whether the administration was doing enough to prevent and punish antisemitic behavior was limited to the experiences of students.
Now, with the focus turning to professors, many faculty members are concerned the Trump administration is weaponizing the EEOC to infringe on college campuses. The survey comes as the Trump administration is citing allegations of unchecked antisemitism as justification for threatening to withhold federal funding unless it is granted the authority to conduct “audits” of academic programs and departments, and impose changes to the university’s governance structure and hiring practices.
These are unlikely to be the last texts. In March, the Department of Education sent letters to 60 universities informing them that they were under investigation for antisemitism. From the protests to the funding freezes, a pattern has presented itself in the upheavals on college campuses over the last year: They may begin at Columbia, but they don’t end there.Salvadoran police officers escort an alleged member of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua recently deported by the U.S. government to be imprisoned in the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) prison, as part of an agreement with the Salvadoran government, in Tecoluca, El Salvador, in this handout image obtained March 16, 2025.
President Donald Trump’s actions against migrants have generated among the most controversy of any of his policies during the first few months of his presidency. His administration’s deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members to a Salvadoran maximum security facility has drawn comparisons to the worst abuses of totalitarian regimes, and Trump’s approval rating on immigration issues has slipped a bit in several polls.
Here’s a brief rundown of three of the most salient actions Trump has taken on migration.
1. Mass deportations of alleged criminal migrants
In March, the Trump administration defied court orders to remove over 200 Venezuelan migrants whom it alleged – without providing proof or due process – were criminals without legal status in the United States. The White House claimed it had the authority to do so thanks to the 1789 Alien Enemies Act, which it invoked to target the Tren de Aragua, a gang it alleges to be conducting “irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States.”
The Supreme Court ruled on April 8 that while the administration could use this act to deport alleged gang members, it must provide them the opportunity to challenge their removals in court first. Eleven days later, it ruled that the administration must halt deportations under the Alien Enemies Act pending a further ruling from the court. The White House derided challenges as “meritless litigation” – even though it admitted in one case, that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, it mistakenly deported him to a potential life sentence in El Salvador. Despite another Supreme Court ruling that the administration must facilitate his return to the United States, the administration says it cannot retrieve him from El Salvador.
2. Executive Order “Protecting the American People Against Invasion”
Trump issued this broad executive order, aka PAPAI, within hours of his inauguration. It revokes several Biden-era executive orders related to immigration and attempts to further the crackdown Trump promised on the campaign trail.
For example, it removed restrictions on immigration authorities attempting to make arrests at sensitive locations like churches, schools, or certain workplaces. It urges state and local law enforcement to aid in immigration arrests, which are usually outside their jurisdictions, and threatens so-called sanctuary cities with the loss of federal funds if they do not assist. The order also mandates the creation of “Homeland Security Task Forces” in each state, reporting to the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security. These task forces are meant to marshall more manpower and resources to make arrests, but the White House has expressed frustration with the pace of detentions.
3. Militarized border protection
In another executive order signed on his first day in office, Trump declared a national emergency on the southern border, enabling military forces to take a greater role in securing the region. He also assigned the Roosevelt Reservation, a 60-foot wide strip of land running along much of the border from New Mexico to California, to the Defense Department. DoD has announced it will administer part of the reservation as a section of Fort Huachuca, a military base in Arizona. Doing so will allow military personnel to put up barriers and make arrests as part of their security duties, but those actions are likely to be challenged in court.
Despite – or perhaps because of – the crackdown along the border, apprehensions are way down compared to the Biden administration. Authorities detained just 11,017 attempted migrants along the southern border in March 2025 compared to 189,359 in March 2024.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent delivers remarks at the Institute of International Finance (IIF) Global Outlook Forum on sidelines of the IMF and World Bank’s 2025 annual Spring Meetings in Washington, D.C.,U.S., April 23, 2025.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent addressed international financiers at the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC, on Wednesday morning, saying that “America First does not mean America alone” but “fairness in the international economic system.”
What does he see as fair? Rebalancing trade and ending the global economy’s overreliance on US demand. “This status quo of large and persistent imbalances is not sustainable,” he said, defending Donald Trump’s tariffs and commending the “more than 100 countries” he says are negotiating with the administration to reduce trade surpluses with the US.
The biggest offender. Speaking with reporters, Bessent rejected rumors that Trump might reduce tariffs on China ahead of talks with Xi Jinping, stressing that any easing would have to be reciprocal.
His speech eased concerns that the Trump administration would withdraw US support from the IMF and World Bank but made clear it would use its influence to reshape the Bretton Woods institutions. To maintain US backing, Bessent said the IMF and World Bank must return to their factory settings. He diagnosed them with “mission creep,” calling on them to stop devoting “disproportionate time and resources to work on climate change, gender, and social issues.”
He also urged tighter lending standards, limiting who qualifies for loans and reducing how long borrowers can remain in arrears. In a pointed message, he called for China – the world’s second-largest economy – to be stripped of its “developing country” status.
“The Trump administration will leverage US leadership and influence at these institutions and push them to accomplish these important mandates.”
Trump’s 4D checkers, China’s opportunity, climate hopes, and more: Your questions, answered
Welcome to another edition of my mailbag, where I attempt to make sense of our increasingly chaotic world, one reader question at a time. If you have a burning question for me before I go back to full-length columns, ask it here and I’ll answer as many as I can in next week’s newsletter.
Let’s dive in (with questions lightly edited for clarity).
Is the US currently a kleptocracy?
The United States is the most structurally kleptocratic of any advanced industrial democracy, with public policy increasingly captured by monied special interests and the rules of the marketplace determined by the highest bidder. The wealthiest Americans not only can fund political campaigns but also buy favorable regulatory and legal treatment and lobby for policies that perpetuate their economic interests. This system is two-tiered alright, but it doesn’t see red and blue – only green.
President Donald Trump is a beneficiary and an accelerant of this disease, but it long predates him. Which is why Trump faced so little pushback from the business world both times he was elected. After all, a system where the connected can buy their preferred policy outcomes is a system much of the private sector is both used to and comfortable with.
Has Trump done to brand USA what Musk did to Tesla?
He’s working on it. The long-term damage to America’s reputational capital has been incalculable (though it hasn’t been as great as the >50% in value Tesla has lost since its mid-December peak). Sometimes you have a personal relationship and someone does something that can’t be unseen. That’s what has happened particularly with Canadians and Europeans of late. I think that damage is permanent. And we are not even 100 days in …
How do other nations view America in light of Trump’s aggressive tariffs, threats, and general disdain for allies?
They all see the United States as the principal driver of geopolitical uncertainty. In the near term, most countries – especially smaller, poorer ones – will look to cut trade deals with Trump relatively quickly because the alternative, direct confrontation with the world’s sole superpower, is too costly to bear. We’re seeing that already with the Japanese, the South Koreans, and many other delegations coming to Washington to try to do everything they can to secure at least functional relations with the US.
At the same time, every country recognizes the longer-term need to hedge away and “de-risk” from the United States as much and as fast as possible to reduce their exposure to Trump-driven disruption. Even those that manage to come away with deals know the president could change his mind. After spending the last decade focusing on the dangers of having too much exposure to Beijing’s opaque, arbitrary, and personalistic decision-making, policymakers, businesses, and investors all over the world now suddenly see de-risking from the US as the more urgent priority. That’s an extraordinary shift when you stop to think about it.
Granted, de-risking from the US is a tall order given America’s asymmetric power advantages and the global embeddedness of so many of the things it provides – defense, advanced technologies, finance – that are hard to substitute (read: to break free from). But many US allies see no choice but to start seriously looking for alternatives. We’re already seeing the European Union and Latin America speed up their conversations to fast-track approval of the EU-Mercosur trade deal. Trump-aligned India is likewise moving to improve its trade relations with the EU, the United Kingdom, Australia, and others. Canada is trying to engage much more closely with the Europeans. Even Vietnam, which has long harbored deep mistrust of China, signed 45 new economic cooperation agreements with Beijing days after Trump trade czar Peter Navarro rebuffed its offer to lower its tariffs on US goods to zero.
Can China capitalize on Trump’s global trade war to peel off US allies?
Xi Jinping just wrapped up a Southeast Asian charm offensive to try to do exactly that. For the first time since the Vietnam War, most Vietnamese are now more well-disposed toward China than the US. That’s not true everywhere (e.g., the Philippines is still about 80% pro-American), but the trend line is clear. China sees the moment as a historic opportunity to move economically closer to many countries and portray itself as a champion of globalization and a force for stability.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean America’s loss will be China’s gain everywhere. The Europeans don’t suddenly trust the Chinese more just because they now trust the Americans less. They still have big issues with Chinese dumping, overcapacity exports (especially in the auto industry), data surveillance, and other beggar-thy-neighbor practices that have not gone away. Europe’s de-risking will be less about tilting to China and more about strengthening its own capabilities and hedging with pretty much everybody else. Plus, as I mentioned above, while Trump has worked hard to alienate US allies, America remains the only game in town for most Western countries in many strategic sectors and critical networks. Going cold turkey is unthinkable.
If everyone thinks tariffs are a bad idea even for the American economy, why is Trump persisting? Do you see a way the US can win on this?
As much as I’d like to believe so, I just can't see any way the US comes out ahead on this. Myself and others have written extensively about why the tariffs (and the massive ongoing uncertainty surrounding US policy) are an economic lose-lose, not only for America’s trade partners but for American consumers and businesses, and not just in the short term but also in the long run. Rather than boost domestic manufacturing, they will accelerate the country’s deindustrialization. And if the administration had really intended to use the tariffs as a cudgel to forge a united front against China (as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and others have claimed), it wouldn’t have slapped punishing duties on friendly countries already inclined to join this alliance before asking for their help. I’m afraid there’s no “4D chess” strategy or master plan.
It’d be one thing if the Trump team were only picking this one fight. But it’s going to be much harder to convince the world not to hedge away from the United States when at the same time as they’re hitting everyone with tariffs, they’re also picking all sorts of fights on other fronts. They are directly and indirectly threatening other countries’ sovereignty and territoriality, whether it’s Greenland and Denmark, Panama, Canada, or Ukraine. They are exporting algorithms and disinformation that undermine democracies around the world. They are destroying the transatlantic alliance. They are aligning with Russia over longstanding allies at the United Nations and the G7. They are driving away foreign tourists and international students. And they’re picking fights domestically, trying to weaken checks and balances, undermine the rule of law, and erode state capacity in ways that will make the US a worse place to live, invest, and do business.
I'd love to be proven wrong, but this policy set looks hands down like the most extraordinary geopolitical own goal I’ve ever witnessed.
Is it possible that Trump is purposely upsetting the economy in an effort to lower interest rates, reduce the US government’s debt servicing costs, and shrink the federal deficit?
Nope. That’s another one of those 4D chess stories flying around, and it’s nonsense. It’s true that a tariff-and-uncertainty-induced US recession can make existing US government debt (and mortgages, car loans, credit card debt, etc.) cheaper to refinance by bringing down long-term interest rates. But if long rates decline because the real economy has deteriorated to the point where the Fed has to cut short-term rates to boost aggregate demand, the money saved on debt interest payments probably will be offset by the lower tax revenue collected and the higher unemployment benefits paid out during the recession. The overall deficit will likely be higher than if said recession hadn’t been engineered in the first place – destroying trillions in economic value and hurting millions of real Americans in the process.
And all this assumes that long rates will in fact go down when the US enters a tariff-and-uncertainty-induced recession, which financial markets are currently telling us is not guaranteed in light of growing inflation and default risks. Thus far, Trump’s stagflationary policy mix and erratic policymaking style have made the world’s safe-haven assets relatively less attractive, prompted investors to sell US bonds, and caused long rates to rise rather than fall.
Will Trump succeed in brokering a ceasefire in Ukraine like he promised on the campaign trail?
Only if he’s willing to effectively use both carrots and sticks on Russia and Ukraine alike. So far he hasn’t, deploying mostly sticks (suspending military aid and intelligence sharing) to force the Ukrainians to come to terms and principally only carrots (the promise of sanctions nonenforcement and relief, and even full normalization of relations) to get the Russians to back off their maximalist demands.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last week the administration is giving the talks “a matter of days” to make progress or else they’ll walk away from the peace effort altogether. The problem is that Vladimir Putin continues to be uninterested in a durable ceasefire, at least not unless the so-called “root causes” of the conflict are addressed through a permanent settlement. He started this war to change the facts on the ground and is convinced he still has what it takes to win it. What’s more, he’s betting that if he can keep slow rolling the peace talks and convince Trump that it was Kyiv’s intransigence that tanked them, Russia could plausibly get a US rapprochement while it continues to wage war against a Ukraine deprived of US assistance. I’m not a betting man, but at this point, it’s a reasonable wager for Putin to make.
What do you expect from incoming German Chancellor Friedrich Merz?
Less capacity to spend and lead than many people hope, despite having managed to pass a historic fiscal package through the Bundestag lifting the country’s “debt brake” for defense spending and creating a 500 billion euro special fund for infrastructure investments. The incoming coalition is serious but relatively unpopular and divided, facing a stronger-than-ever far-right Alternative for Germany leading the opposition in the new parliament.
This political weakness, combined with the sheer scale of the challenges it faces, will water down the government’s ambitions. Germany is undergoing a severe, decade-long economic crisis. Merz will be under considerable pressure to jumpstart growth quickly amid global trade wars and under tight budget conditions. Just a few weeks ago, he was well-disposed to take on a European leadership role. Now that talk is no longer cheap, his constraints and risk tolerance will change. And if the Germans won’t step up, who in Europe can?
Is climate action possible in a disintegrating world? Have the odds of avoiding catastrophic climate change worsened in the past three months?
I’m more optimistic here. We’ve already broken the back of the most catastrophic climate change scenarios. Economic self-interest – not ideology or idealism – is driving the clean energy revolution as technological innovation and steep learning curves have dramatically reduced the price tag of clean power technologies, making them the cheapest and most profitable option in a lot of markets regardless of politics. Deep-red Texas and Florida lead the US in solar and wind power deployment. China is set to hit its emissions peak several years ahead of schedule. Europe sees renewables as an energy security imperative. Emerging markets from India to Indonesia and Pakistan are eager to develop using cheaper and cleaner domestic energy sources than high-volatility, dirty imported fuels.
I don’t want to be glib. The planet is still heating up faster than we’d like, and the present state of geopolitics – from Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” to the G-Zero vacuum of global climate leadership – will slow the pace of decarbonization. With every fraction of a degree of warming causing bigger and more frequent disasters, lower growth, and more deaths, that’s not good news. But for every environmental regulation repealed, clean energy policy revoked, fossil fuel project approved, and international commitment abandoned, there’s another, much more structural force pulling even harder in the opposite direction. As my colleagues and I put it in Eurasia Group’s 2025 Top Risks report, the global energy transition “has reached escape velocity.”
Would you ride Moose like a jockey if given the opportunity?
I’d train him with a well-disposed toddler first. That would be must-see television. Any volunteers?
The White House is seen from a nearby building rooftop in Washington, D.C. on May 4, 2023.
During the 2024 election campaign, US President Donald Trump made a plethora of ambitious promises to the American electorate and pledged to make them come true fast. He even suggested he’d be a dictator for a day to get them done. As he approaches the 100-day mark of his second presidency, GZERO assesses the extent to which he’s achieved his goals.
1. The swath of tax cuts – not yet
Wherever he went on the campaign trail, Trump seemed to make another promise about cutting taxes. He promised a crowd in Las Vegas that he’d end taxes on tips, told the Economic Club of Detroit in October that he’d make car loans tax deductible, and vowed to Wall Street leaders that he’d slash the corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%. Trump hasn’t yet achieved these goals, as only Congress can change the tax laws. Republicans on Capitol Hill are moving forward with the budget reconciliation process to amend these laws, but it’s not yet clear if the final bill will include all the specific tax cuts that Trump pledged.
2. The largest deportation effort in history – far from it
So much for this one. Despite all the furor over the deportation of alleged gang members to a Salvadoran prison, Trump can’t even seem to match former President Joe Biden’s deportation numbers: The current administration removed fewer migrants in February than its predecessor did 12 months earlier. That’s not to say the president’s rhetoric hasn’t had an impact: Border crossings have plunged since he returned to office.
3. Pardoning the Jan. 6 rioters – achieved on Day 1
This one didn’t take long: On his first day back in office, Trump absolved everyone involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, either by pardon, commutation, or case dismissal. The move appeared to surprise Vice President JD Vance, who said a week before the inauguration that those who committed violence would not receive clemency – the president duly overruled his second-in-command. Trump may not be finished yet, either, as he explores offering compensation for the pardoned rioters.
4. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war – not even close
A huge talking point for Trump and the Republican Party was that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would never have happened under his watch. Moving a step further, the president pledged to end the war within 24 hours of returning to the White House. If the former “Apprentice” star really believed his own words, he’s now had a dose of reality, as the end of the war remains firmly out of sight. The Trump administration seems fed up and is now on the verge of abandoning the negotiations.
5. His pledge to “cut the fat out of our government” – yes, and then some
Tariffs aside, the defining story of Trump’s first 100 days has been his extraordinary cuts to the federal workforce. From effectively disbanding the US Agency for International Development and initiating the end of the Education Department to being on track to remove a third of the Internal Revenue Service staff, the president and his billionaire advisor, Elon Musk, have taken a chainsaw to the federal government. To this end, Trump’s longtime plan to “drain the swamp” is finally coming to fruition, pending certain lawsuits.
President Donald Trump signs an executive order to start the elimination of the Department of Education on March 20, 2025.
Nearing the end of his first 100 days, a milestone he’ll hit on April 30, Donald Trump has already shattered records with 124 executive orders — more than any other president. But he has signed just five new bills into law, a historic low, and many of his EOs are facing legal challenges, while some – like his bids to end birthright citizenship, freeze foreign aid, and ban transgender military service members – have been temporarily blocked.
Trump’s controversial executive orders have grabbed plenty of headlines, but what about the less-contentious ones? We know it’s a lot to keep up with, so here are a few you may have missed:
Scrub a dub dub dub STRONGER
Think of Trump next time you shower. Thanks to the executive order “Maintaining Acceptable Water Pressure in Showerheads,” the White House is taking aim at what it sees as the “left’s war on water pressure,” ensuring that showerheads will no longer “be weak and worthless.”
The order takes issue with Obama- and Biden-era regulations that lowered the amount of water shower heads could spout to decrease America’s water usage, arguing that the “13,000-word” regulation had turned the household appliance into a hydrodynamic device of bureaucratic oppression. Now, showers will be required to produce 2.5-gallons-per-minute, just in time for Earth Day, which is Tuesday, April 22.
Cutting out checks
Trump’s order “Modernizing Payments To and From America’s Bank Account,” will officially bring an end to the government issuing or accepting checks by the end of September.
While check usage has been steadily declining, the US still clings to them more than any other country — writing 10 times as many as Britain, Australia, Italy, Germany, and France combined. That’s largely due to America’s highly fragmented banking system. Since the federal government is one of the biggest check writers, this move could mark the beginning of the end for checks in the US — a payment method still commonly used by small businesses, contractors, and for charity donations.
Check writing in America is also deeply generational, with seniors aged 65 and up far the biggest users. So, if you’re hoping for a birthday check from grandma next year, set her up on Venmo.
Cartels designated terrorists, and deportations followed
A major part of Trump’s push to increase deportations is tied to an executive order called “Designating Cartels and Other Organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists.” This order gives the US government powerful new tools by officially labeling drug cartels and similar groups as terrorist organizations. It allows authorities to freeze their assets, ban members from traveling, hit them with tough sanctions, and prosecute them — along with anyone connected to them — even outside the US.
The move has already caused tension with Mexico, especially after the US used the order to justify flying surveillance drones into Mexican territory.
This policy works in tandem with another executive order, the “Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua.” Now that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua has been designated a terrorist group, this order allows the government to immediately detain and deport suspected members. Some Venezuelan migrants have already been deported to El Salvador, although further deportations are currently paused due to legal challenges.
Mining influence
Another executive order “Establishment of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and United States Digital Asset Stockpile,” directs the Federal Reserve — and by extension, the government — to be directly involved in buying and selling cryptocurrency. The reserve would hold five types of cryptocurrency, including 200,000 Bitcoin tokens seized from criminal cases — worth over $17 billion. With a reserve in place, those holdings could expand beyond Bitcoin to include Ether, along with three lesser-known cryptocurrencies: XRP, Solana, and Cardano.
Since cryptocurrency is still relatively new, the US taking this step will make it a key player in this emerging industry, potentially putting it in a position to influence prices. Trump has embraced cryptocurrency on the campaign trail and in his administration’s infancy, collecting millions of dollars in donations from crypto investors and founders and attending a crypto summit in March.
Make America Healthy Again
Trump has signed executive orders on health. The first, “Establishing the President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission,”creates an initiative to study key health issues like rising rates of chronic disease, the overuse of prescription drugs, poor nutrition standards, and how much influence the food and pharmaceutical industries have on regulations.
It will also lay the foundation for possible changes to things like vaccine schedules and food-labeling rules.
The second executive order, “Making America Healthy Again by Empowering Patients with Clear, Accurate, and Actionable Healthcare Pricing Information,” will require hospitals, insurers, and pharmaceutical companies to be more transparent about their prices.
The goal is to help patients clearly see what insurance plans, medical procedures, and prescription drugs actually cost, so they can make informed choices instead of relying on vague estimates or confusing information.
As we pass the 100-day mark, Trump’s executive orders have touched everything from Bitcoin to bathtime — and there’s no sign he’s slowing down. But the real test will be whether he can turn these policy priorities into lasting change by securing funding in the next congressional budget or getting them written into law.