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.
{{ subpage.title }}
President Donald Trump gives a thumbs up as he returns to the White House on Feb. 22, 2025.
Opinion: 100 days of promises kept
World leaders and the global audience are trying to adjust to so much change in such little time, but the dominant thread has been the surprises hidden in plain sight throughout these last three months.
Border security & budget cuts take center stage
At home, the administration immediately got to work on commitments made on the campaign trail and in the latest Republican platform. Atop the list was a mandate to reverse “open-border” immigration policies and secure the US frontier. In its “Protecting the American People against Invasion” presidential action, one of a flurry of Day 1 executive orders, Trump established the groundwork for a multipronged policy, which has included detentions and mass deportations, designating MS-13 a foreign terrorist organization, and court battles over the protected status of Venezuelan migrants as well as birthright citizenship. The approach has had a chilling effect on immigration, with southwest land-border encounters down more than 90% year-on-year, according to the latest March data.
Trump’s other major domestic campaign priorities, deregulation and reigning in federal spending, have spawned a similar pace of action. Elon Musk’s work overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency has come to symbolize how the contours and shape of the US federal government have been redrawn. Last week’s announcement by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that his department will also be overhauled – reducing jobs, shuttering “redundant” offices, and reprioritizing departmental focus – is just the latest example of a campaign throughline to reevaluate federal government spending and structure. The news comes as local governments and populations are still adapting to the shuttering of USAID, a key lever of US soft power abroad.
On domestic policy, there have been few surprises. Trump’s 2024 campaign commitments have become Trump 2.0 administration policy. Despite efforts last fall by the Trump campaign to distance itself from Project 2025, co-author Russell Vought’s selection to lead the Office of Management and Budget was a clear and present signal to all market players of how expansively the plans currently unfolding had been laid.
Remaking America’s role abroad
Turning to the global stage, Trump 2.0’s America First foreign policy has not been the “Make America Great Again” isolationism of Trump 1.0. Instead, from Canada to Mexico, Greenland, and Yemen, no stone is being left unconsidered or unturned. Global expectations set by the first Trump administration that foreign policy would only play second fiddle to a brighter spotlight on the domestic agenda are being updated. Trump has begun to remake America’s role in the world in his image, sowing a geopolitical unsettling but being transparent about the administration’s intentions – as peacemakers and trade disrupters.
As a would-be peacemaker, the president had hoped to bring an efficient closure to the war in Ukraine, an ambition welcomed by those sitting in European capitals. He committed initially to ending the conflict on his first day in office but later extended the timeline to within six months. Last week’s decision by lead attaché Steve Witkoff and Rubio to pull out of peace talks in London is telling. With remaining wide gulfs between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Trump (even after their 15-minute tête-à-tête at the pope’s funeral this weekend), and likewise, between Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the US administration is quickly discovering that intractability is in the details. European leadership has yet to identify an offramp to the conflict that does not include the US administration’s stewardship.
As a quick resolution does not appear imminent, the Trump administration may soon look to quietly back out and close the door on its peace negotiation efforts. Rubio acknowledged as much over the weekend, saying that “we cannot continue … to dedicate time and resources to this effort if it is not going to come to fruition.”
Any reduction in attention on Ukraine and Europe would almost certainly coincide with a ramp-up toward the Middle East, where the administration has historically had more success (e.g. Trump 1.0’s Abraham Accords).
While being a peacemaker remains a work in progress, the president has exceeded expectations as a trade disrupter over the first 100 days. Despite Trump’s constant refrain of tariffs and a four-decade commitment to seeing the US not get “ripped off,” the markets and global leadership still held their breath for a targeted, gradual installation of levies. Instead, April 2, aka “Liberation Day,” introduced the world to one man’s concept of “kind reciprocity,” a benign phrase that has the potential to reshape the global trading system, financial markets, and international relationships.
The accompanying executive order provided for a 10% flat tariff on all trading partners, which went into effect earlier this month. The additional “discounted” reciprocal tariff rates to be imposed on certain trading partners were postponed for 90 days until July 9 for all except the People’s Republic of China. In the intervening weeks, markets have wobbled but are holding onto hope.
The dominant question now is what lies ahead for the next 100 days and beyond. As the “Liberation Day” announcements and maneuvers clarify, there will be more volatility to come. Even with the policy priorities and details beginning to be filled in, this is not the finishing line; it is merely the starting gun. Trump has 90% of the race still to run.
Still, the Trump administration will be pleased with the scorecard of promises kept thus far. It has planted seeds across the domestic and global landscape and will now step back to watch the garden grow. On trade, the ambition is 90 deals in 90 days. And with it, Trump assumes his most preferred role: dealmaker-in-chief.
Lindsay Newman is a geopolitical risk expert and columnist for GZERO.
US President Donald Trump returns to the White House from his New Jersey golf club to Washington, DC, on April 27, 2024.
Viewpoint: How strong is Trump’s support 100 days in?
President Donald Trump has claimed a broad mandate to pursue sweeping changes to US institutions and policies since he took office on Jan. 20. He has sought to overhaul the federal government by closing agencies and cutting thousands of jobs, restructure the economy by throwing up a tariff wall to force companies to base more of their operations in the US, reconfigure decades-old foreign alliances, and assert expansive powers in an illegal immigration crackdown.
With a cohesive team in the White House, Republican control of Congress, and a disoriented Democratic opposition, Trump has pushed ahead rapidly on many fronts. But opinion polls in recent weeks have shown a sharp decline in public support for the president, and the courts, financial markets, and other institutions have started curbing his actions. Eurasia Group’s Clayton Allen and Noah Daponte-Smith explain their shared insights on where things are likely to go from here.
What is your assessment of the strength of Trump’s starting position? Was it a “historic mandate,” as he has said? And where does he stand today?
Trump’s popular vote win last November gave him a mandate — not the historic romp that he claimed, but a clear signal from voters that they wanted to buy what he was selling. A hundred days in, a lot of voters are suffering buyer’s remorse. It’s been a rough 100 days, almost all self-imposed: The US economy is headed for much lower growth, if not contraction; negotiations are moving slower than the expectations Trump set for the Ukraine war and Gaza; and national polling shows Trump underwater in overall approval, his handling of the economy, management of foreign policy, inflation, even immigration in some polling.
In the Silver Bulletin polling average, Trump had a 52% approval rating (with +12 net approval) on Jan. 21. His approval has since declined to 44%, with a -9 net approval.
The big question for Trump is if, or when, the negative views on the economy and general exhaustion with volatility begin to weigh on his GOP support. His approval among GOP voters is still robust in the mid-80s, but it is showing signs of weakening on the issues. A Gallup poll over the weekend, for example, found that 36% of Republicans believe that tariffs — one of the administration’s headline policies — will “end up costing the US more money than they bring in.”
What signs of Trump’s support will you be focusing on in the months ahead?
Two things – Trump’s approval ratings on the economy and his approval ratings among Republicans. Economic performance polling is a traditional source of strength for Trump, but the economy is where he has shown his sharpest and most notable decline, largely stemming from the tariff rollout. According to the Economist/YouGov survey, Trump’s net approval on the economy was -5.8% as of last week. That is lower than at any point in his first term when he reached a nadir of a net -2%. If Trump is losing support on one of his traditionally strongest issues, that suggests he will be somewhat politically weakened in the latter half of 2025 and beyond.
Trump’s approval ratings among Republicans will be another key sign to watch. The president’s ability to command an unruly Republican conference in Congress depends in large part on his unquestioned popularity within the party. So far, that has held up: He’s still above in the mid-80s% approval among Republicans. But if that dips below 80%, Trump may no longer appear the invincible figure in the party that he does today.
What do you see as the biggest risks for Trump and his ability to advance his agenda?
Recession, market blowback, and the courts. After a big sell-off in early April, markets have stabilized somewhat following Trump’s decision to pause some of his most expansive tariff measures. But with no imminent trade deals on the horizon to clarify tariff levels, one wonders how long that confidence can hold. Similarly, a recession – beginning in the second half of the year, or potentially backdated to the first – would severely disrupt his tax cuts-and-tariffs agenda.
The courts are the biggest source of procedural risk for Trump, especially on the deportation of illegal immigrants and the spending cuts made by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. We have already seen strong pushback from the courts in both areas. That pushback may extend to tariffs as well, with court cases in the pipeline over the legality of the emergency authorities claimed to enact them. In all these areas, the courts’ skeptical postures toward the Trump administration’s more disruptive actions will be a major source of conflict between the branches of government over the next year.
How do you think Trump will react if some of these risks materialize? Change approach? Lash out against institutional checks on his power?
Lashing out against institutional checks is more likely. A Trump who can no longer marshal the Republican congressional conference at his will probably seek to expand executive power so that he can act without Congress. Key members of the administration have already pointed in that direction. Even with Musk poised to scale back his involvement with DOGE, the administration is claiming broad powers to reshape the federal government under the so-called unitary executive theory. Similarly, pushback from the courts will likely lead Trump to further test the exact bounds of the courts’ power, as in his moves to skirt rulings related to deported immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s case. And if an economic downturn materializes, Trump will likely blame it on the policies of the Federal Reserve and its Chairman Jerome Powell.
Edited by Jonathan House, senior editor at Eurasia Group.
Graphic Truth: Is Trump’s use of executive orders unprecedented?
All presidents rely on executive orders, but in his second first 100 days in office, Donald Trump has taken it to a whole new level. He has issued 137 executive orders so far — more than triple the 41 Joe Biden signed during the same period, and far surpassing the pace of Trump’s own first term in 2017.
Executive orders are an efficient tool to deliver on “first 100 days” campaign promises (check out this article on where five of Trump’s biggest campaign promises stand). While they offer an immediate way to shape policy, they’re also notoriously fragile — easily reversed by future administrations, as seen on Trump’s first day in office, when he issued 26 executive orders and overturned 78 of Biden’s.
Critics warn that Trump’s flood of orders isn’t just about speed; it’s also raising serious concerns about presidential overreach. Many fear he is using executive actions to bypass Congress altogether and, in some cases, is ignoring Supreme Court rulings instructing him to stop.U.S. President Donald Trump meets with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni in the Cabinet Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 17, 2025.
Trump versus the courts
A federal judge set up a showdown with the Trump administration on Wednesday with a ruling that threatens to find the government in contempt if it fails to comply with a judicial order to provide due process to Venezuelans deported to a prison in El Salvador.
This is separate from the ongoing clash between the White House and the courts over the fate of Kilmar Abrego García, the undocumented immigrant who was sent to an El Salvador prison on suspicion of being a gang member, in defiance of a court’s stay of deportation.
Judge James E. Boasberg’s threat regarding the Venezuelan deportations is the latest round of a deepening legal fight with a White House that insists that judges seeking to ensure oversight and due process in deportation procedures are interfering with lawful (and popular) measures that are necessary to remove illegal immigrants and criminals.
So far, Trump and his officials have openly challenged the courts’ authority but have yet to overtly defy lawful orders. When the Associated Press won a First Amendment case challenging their expulsion from the White House press pool, for example, the administration simply eliminated the pool position rather than comply with the ruling.
Trump has said he won’t challenge the authority of the Supreme Court, something that would set off a far-reaching constitutional crisis. But so much of his governing agenda is eliciting judicial challenges that the High Court will be repeatedly called on to define the limits of executive power. Seems these fights are only just beginning.
A group of migrants sit as they wait to be transported for processing on the day the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals hears oral arguments on Texas' motion to lift a block on its SB4 immigration law that would allow state officials to arrest migrants suspected of being in the country illegally, in El Paso, Texas, U.S. March 20, 2024 .
Supreme Court hands Trump a win, with caveats, and ACLU files new suit
In a 5-4 ruling, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration could continue deporting suspected Venezuelan gang members to a Salvadoran prison using the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act, overturning a lower-court judge’s decision to temporarily halt the flights.
“A GREAT DAY FOR JUSTICE IN AMERICA!” US President Donald Trumpposted on Truth Social, celebrating the decision on Monday.
Not so fast. As part of the ruling, the Supreme Court stated that detainees are entitled to receive notice of their deportations and can challenge any decisions before a judge ahead of any removals, a privilege that the first set of deportees weren’t afforded. It comes after the White House started removing these alleged gang members, many of whom have no criminal record, last month. The executive branch even appeared to defy a judge’s order to turn around one of the planes. The American Civil Liberties Union duly asked a New York judge on Tuesday to halt the removals of two migrants who are being detained in the Empire State.
“The critical point is that the Supreme Court said individuals must be given due process to challenge their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. That is a huge victory,”
ACLU attorney Lee Gelerntsaid of the ruling.Out of left field. From requesting more funds for border patrol to invoking old laws, Trump has explored several avenues to secure the border and remove migrants. That’s unlikely to stop anytime soon, as he now explores a $998 daily charge for migrants who shun deportation orders.
From left, FBI Director Kash Patel, Tulsi Gabbard, director of National Intelligence, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, testify during the House Select Intelligence Committee hearing titled “Worldwide Threats Assessment,” in Longworth building on Wednesday, March 26, 2025. The witnesses fielded questions on the Signal chat, about attacks against Houthis in Yemen, that accidentally included a reporter.
Will Trump find a fall guy for Signal chat revelations?
The drip, drip, drip of revelations about the Trump administration’s Signal chat continued Wednesday as The Atlantic published screenshots that showed senior officials sharing military plans on the messaging app. “1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets),” US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote at 11:44 a.m. on March 15, two hours before the United States bombed the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
The trick is not getting caught: Before The Atlanticposted receipts for its original article, Hegseth flatly denied that anyone had been “texting war plans.” Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said at a Senate hearing on Tuesday that the chat didn’t contain any “intelligence equities.” After the screenshots dropped, Gabbard denied lying to senators, telling a House hearing on Wednesday that her Tuesday testimony “was based on my recollection, or the lack thereof, on the details that were posted there.”
Deflect, deflect: President Donald Trump, meanwhile, said Wednesday that the intense focus on this chat group was “all a witch hunt.” He also suggested that the Signal messaging app was faulty and that his predecessor, Joe Biden, was to blame for not having struck Yemen earlier – but the US under Biden did lead allied strikes against the Houthis in Yemen last year.
Legal tactics: Rather than punish someone inside the government ranks, the Trump administration may instead go after The Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg, who was inadvertently added to the chat and published the screenshots.
“The Trump administration is very likely to target Goldberg with some legal repercussions, though runs the risk of keeping the story in the headlines as new angles emerge,” according to Eurasia Group US Director Clayton Allen.
For more insights on Signal-gate, check out Ian Bremmer’s latest Quick Take here.
Leaked Signal chat shows Trump team's mindset
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take on the back of the full transcript of these Signal chat that's going on about the bombing of the Houthis. A few things here. First of all, are we surprised that a journalist is actually publishing what is clearly classified data? And there's no question, it's classified data. I mean, you're talking about the targets, the exact timing in advance of US military strikes, incredibly sensitive information, against people that are described as terrorists in the chat. And clearly, if that information had gotten out in advance when Jeffrey Goldberg had received it in real time, it would have put the operation at risk. It would have prevented it from going on. It would have been denounced as leaking classified information, and he would be facing some legal charges from the administration. So I don't think it's credible to say that this is not classified.
But since Trump and members of administration have now said that it isn't classified, there was nothing classified in it, I guess that provides legal cover since it is ultimately in the charge of the president to be able to determine, as president, whether or not something is classified. That there's nothing illegal in Goldberg and the Atlantic Magazine now taking all of that information and putting it out to the public. So is that embarrassing for the US with its allies in terms of how they're handling such a chat? The answer is of course, yes. And I expect that we're going to see a significant amount of continued focus on this topic. A lot of people are going to be asking questions about how it was that this conversation could have been had on Signal and also how it was that Goldberg could have been brought on board. But say that as it may. I mean if you are the Trump administration here, it is age-old tactic, full denial responsibility is actually of your political adversaries so blame Goldberg. Imply that maybe he tried to get on the call through nefarious ways.
It's all his fault. It's overstated. He's a fake news, no news journalist. No one should pay attention to him. He's a bad guy. I mean all of that stuff. And I was particularly bemused by Elon Musk sharing a post from the Babylon Bee saying that, "If you wanted to ensure that nobody ever saw information you'd put it on page 2 of the Atlantic." And of course, that is true for Elon, and it's true for Trump supporters. And this is why the strategy works, is because the Atlantic and the people that read the Atlantic and support the Atlantic are all considered disinformation by those that are loyal to Trump. And vice versa. Fox, and Newsmax and all of the right-wing podcasts. Those are considered fake news by people that don't support, that dislike Trump. And that allows a strategy of full denial, not engaging with the facts and blaming those that are coming after you to be successful. Now, I still think that there are interesting pieces of information here.
Perhaps the most important is that the actual policy conversation, not the details of the war fighting itself, but rather whether or not it was a good idea to be attacking the Houthis, in a big way that was potentially going to increase energy prices. And that was much less of a fight of the Americans than it would be of those in the region that are engaged in the direct proxy war with Iran or the Europeans who have a lot more directly at stake, in terms of their trade in transit. And that was a very reasonable question, and it was strongly, in other words, Vice President Vance opposed these strikes and he's the most important person. He's the most senior ranking person in this chat. Trump isn't on the chat. And he's not saying the president is wrong. He's saying, "I don't believe the president is fully informed and this clearly is not in his interest, in his policy interest."
Now, the reason this is important is because in Trump's first term, I think you would have had a very similar conversation from people like Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo and others that would have been on this chat, but then they would have brought it to the president. And many, many instances in the first term of policy disagreements that then came up and said, "Mr. President. Respectfully, we think we've got additional information and we can better carry out your will by doing X, Y, and Z." And there were checks. There were internal checks on executive authority. What we see this time around is we see JD Vance, who's obviously a very smart guy saying, "I think this is a really bad idea. We shouldn't be doing it, but I'm prepared not to raise it to the president unless I have everybody around me supporting me because I can't do this by myself. I'm just going to get my head chopped off." And there's a little bit of back and forth.
And Stephen Miller, the deputy chief of staff for policy in the White House and a full-on Trump loyalist, says, "Nope, the president wants this. I'm ending the conversation." And that's the end of the conversation, and it never gets to Trump. And then they go ahead and they bomb. So whatever you think about whether this was a good or a bad decision, the challenge here is that we have a big cabinet, some of whom are very capable, some of whom are absolutely not capable. But first and foremost is not getting the best information to the president because he's extremely confident. He believes that his policies are always the right ones, and he is absolutely punishing anything that feels like disloyalty, inside or outside of his team. That's why Pompeo, for example, John Bolton, have had their security details stripped away. Even though the Iranian government has been trying to assassinate them, right? Why? Because they were disloyal to Trump. That's not why they're trying to assassinate him. That's why Trump took away their security detail and that is a very strong message to everybody that is on this chat.
And I do worry, I worry that the three most powerful men in power today around the world, all in their 70s, Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping, are also men that are incredibly confident about the rightness of their views. That loyalty is the key to the most important currency of power that exists inside those systems. And increasingly, they're not getting good information from their own advisers. That's a dangerous place for the world to be. It's a dangerous place for the world to be heading, and that's frankly the most important thing that I took out of this chat. So that's it for me. I'll talk to you all real soon, thanks.
Trump in front of a downward trending graph and economic indicators.
America is souring on Trumponomics. Trump may not care.
For someone who campaigned on lowering grocery prices on day one and rode widespread economic discontent to the White House, Donald Trump sure seems bent on pursuing policies that will increase that discontent.
If you don’t believe me, take it from the president himself, who refused to rule out a recession last Sunday and acknowledged that his sweeping tariff plans would cause “a little disturbance.” But, he added, “we are okay with that.”
Are we okay with that, though?
From Trump pump to Trump dump
Trump’s election victory unleashed “animal spirits” as many business leaders and investors hoped he’d follow through on his campaign promises to cut red tape and lower taxes while ignoring the more disruptive planks of his economic platform: tariff hikes and immigration restrictions. Surely much of it was posturing and bluffing, they thought, and Trump’s more extreme impulses would be checked by market-friendly advisers like Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. In the worst-case scenario, they assumed Trump would course correct when confronted with sliding stock prices or signs of economic cracks.
Slowly but surely, they are starting to realize they got it wrong. Trump meant what he said and is less bound by constraints than during his first term. (I hate to say I told you so, but it wouldn’t have taken them so long to figure this out if they subscribed to this newsletter.)
The S&P500 has dropped by 8% over the last month (so far) as the president’s promised “golden age” of growth collided with the chaotic reality of Trumponomics. American equities are not only lower than they were before Trump’s inauguration but have erased all gains since he became the odds-on favorite to win the race in October. This represents the worst stock market performance in a president’s first 50 days since Barack Obama took office in the midst of the global financial crisis.
But it’s not just Wall Street that’s souring on Trump’s plans. Consumers, small businesses, and CEOs alike are all reporting sharp declines in confidence, largely due to record uncertainty about tariffs. Manufacturing activity is slowing, retail sales and construction spending are falling, and businesses of all kinds are paring back their investment plans as threats to the US outlook mount.
Inflation expectations are on the rise, with 60% of Americans believing Trump isn’t doing enough to bring down inflation and 68% fearing that his tariffs will lead to higher prices. Most Americans think the economy is on the wrong track and disapprove of the president’s handling of it. No wonder Trump’s net approval has taken a quick hit, his honeymoon ending faster than any other president’s save one: Trump 1.0.
It's the economic uncertainty, stupid
Businesses and investors have reason to worry.
In his first six weeks in office, Trump has made it clear that he is dead serious about building a “tariff wall” around America, not as a negotiating tool but to reshape global trade flows. The US effective tariff rate is set to rise to its highest level since the 1940s by the end of the year, raising prices for American consumers and businesses and slowing down growth. Trump has virtually closed the southern border and ramped up the pace of deportations, which will constrain the labor supply and lead to higher prices and lower growth. He has threatened to eliminate government subsidies, contracts, and grants that businesses, universities, and other organizations rely on. And he has empowered Elon Musk’s chaotic effort to purge, downsize, and capture the administrative state, threatening the delivery of critical public services, amplifying these macroeconomic shocks, and destroying US state capacity.
And yet, these first-order consequences of Trump’s policies are not the core reason why traders and boardrooms are freaking out about the outlook for the US economy. Don’t get me wrong, businesses prefer good policies to bad policies. But they can adapt to bad policies. You know what they can’t adapt to? Policies that can turn on a dime based on the president’s whims.
Maybe you agree with Trump that “trade wars are good and easy to win,” or perhaps you believe his policies will cause short-term pain but be worth it in the long run. But whatever you may think of the merits of his agenda, there’s no denying that the constant uncertainty he brings to the table is terrible for business.
Every business decision is a bet about the future. The one non-negotiable before making any investment is a bare minimum of predictability. When the rules of the game can change any day (and when they’re no longer applied impartially), the rational choice is to put off costly long-term investment plans – even if the possible payoffs are high.
That’s why the extreme policy arbitrariness, volatility, and uncertainty that characterizes Trump 2.0 – best exemplified by his on-again, off-again, on-again tariffs – is the ultimate economic dampener. Even if Trump walks back some tariffs or implements his pro-growth promises, uncertainty – by some metrics already higher than it was during the pandemic, the 2008 financial crisis, and 9/11 – will remain near all-time highs for the foreseeable future, discouraging investment, hiring, and consumption, and raising prices. Its chilling effect will compound the direct impact of the administration’s implemented tariffs, deportations, federal layoffs, and so on. As I warned in Eurasia Group’s Top Risks report, “in the long run this will risk undermining the predictability and performance of the world’s most dynamic economy, preeminent investment destination, and issuer of the global reserve currency.”
No more Trump put?
Trump seems to have no intention of backing off his plans or moderating his “move fast and break things” approach, even in the face of economic dislocation. “Markets are going to go up and they’re going to go down, but, you know what, we have to rebuild our country,” he said at the White House yesterday.
This contrasts sharply with his first term, when Trump considered the stock market a barometer of success. Back then, investors and business leaders knew they could count on the “Trump put” – the president’s tendency to curtail his most economically harmful policies when faced with financial turmoil. Now, Trump is openly saying he doesn’t care that investors believe his agenda could cause a recession and raise prices – because it might, and he’s convinced the sacrifice will be worth it for the greater good. “Will there be some pain?” he asked in February. “Maybe (and maybe not!) But we will make America great again, and it will all be worth the price that must be paid.”
So the Trump put either doesn’t exist anymore, or the threshold is significantly higher than it used to be. This makes sense when you consider the president doesn’t have to (read: can’t) run for reelection again. After being twice impeached, convicted, nearly assassinated, and taken for dead politically, the 78-year-old Trump is in a rush to cement his legacy before his “enemies” get another chance to take him down.
True, most presidents – even lame ducks – would consider avoiding a crippling economic meltdown, scoring a decent result in the midterms, and handing the reins to a same-party successor essential to a good legacy. But Trump is no ordinary president. He does not, for example, care much about the Republican Party (after all, he hasn't been a member for long). What he does care about is his own image. In that sense, he is still constrained by public opinion – or rather, his perception of it.
The key question is whether there’s anyone around him who can speak truth to power to a man who has famously little patience for being told he’s wrong. As I wrote in Eurasia Group’s Top Risks report:
Not only does the president-elect have unified government and consolidated control of the Republican Party, but he is building a more personally loyal and ideologically aligned administration than last time. His team will come into office ready to implement – rather than thwart – Trump’s agenda.
If his first 50 days are any indication, the US economy may be in for a lot more trouble until reality pierces his bubble … if it ever does. The beatings will continue until morale improves.