Search
AI-powered search, human-powered content.
scroll to top arrow or icon

{{ subpage.title }}

President Donald Trump gives a thumbs up as he returns to the White House on Feb. 22, 2025.

REUTERS/Craig Hudson

Opinion: 100 days of promises kept

This week marks 100 days of the second Trump administration. Against a political timekeeping system of late that has been measured by the shelf life of lettuce (British Prime Minister Liz Truss’ seven weeks in office) and “Scaramuccis” (Anthony Scaramucci’s 10 days as White House communications director under Trump 1.0), the first 100 days of this administration feels like an anomaly. More has been set in motion in just over three months than other US administrations have sought to accomplish in full terms. Trump 2.0 is the dog-years presidency – every day brings seven days’ worth of developments.
Read moreShow less

US President Donald Trump returns to the White House from his New Jersey golf club to Washington, DC, on April 27, 2024.

Sipa USA via Reuters Connect

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.

Read moreShow less
Annie Gugliotta

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.

REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

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.

Read moreShow less

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 .

REUTERS/Justin Hamel

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.

Read moreShow less

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.

Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Sipa USA

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.

Read moreShow less
- YouTube

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.

Jess Frampton

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?

Read moreShow less

Subscribe to our free newsletter, GZERO Daily

Latest