08.05.2025

Trump’s first 100 days

Liberals have been profoundly shocked. Maybe it is a pose; after all, almost everything was announced during the presidential election campaign, says Yassamine Mather

Giving the first 100 days of a US president particular significance, making it into a symbolic milestone, dates back to Franklin D Roosevelt. There is, of course, also Napoleon Bonaparte’s 100 days after he returned to France from his exile on Elba … but that did not end well.

As for Donald Trump’s first 100 days, they have certainly been what you might call eventful. From the start, there was a rapid rollout of executive orders - almost too many to track. One widely circulated photo shows Trump’s desk piled with orders awaiting his signature. This strategy, recommended by the rightwing Project 2025 blueprint from the Heritage Foundation, aimed to “flood the zone” - to overwhelm the opposition with a rapid, relentless assertion of executive power. This was not a president who cautiously tested political waters, but one charging ahead with controversial initiatives, many of which he had fielded during the campaign.

Tariffs

Tariffs, for instance, were expected. The shock lay not in their arrival, but their scale. They targeted not just US adversaries, but also allies, in an attempt to secure more favourable trade terms. China, in particular, was a major target, and the trade war initiated during this period saw both countries refuse to back down. Behind the scenes, China had long prepared for such a conflict - economically and militarily. Neither side blinked, despite public speculation and diplomatic gestures.

The US economy experienced turbulence and, although Trump continued to blame the economic downturn on Joe Biden, signs of strain - partly induced by aggressive tariff policies - were already visible during these first 100 days. Global repercussions were inevitable, as the world economy is closely tied to US performance.

On migration, the Trump administration’s approach was openly punitive. Migrants were deported en masse, including to hell holes like the CECOT prison in El Salvador. The cruelty was deliberate - meant to act as a deterrent by showcasing the dangers of seeking illegal entry to the US. Yet economic desperation globally meant that push factors often overrode these fear-based policies. Even remote chances of escape seemed better than the certainty of misery at home.

At the same time, figures like Elon Musk, and others within the broader Trumpist orbit, promoted the illusion of anti-government disruption. Yet federal spending increased under Trump, undermining such libertarian pretences. Key institutions like the Department of Defense remained untouched, revealing the limits of this so-called anarcho-capitalism.

Foreign policy under Trump has been imperial when it comes to the North American continent. He wants the Panama canal back, he wants Canada as the 51st state and he wants to buy Greenland. Elsewhere things have been transactional. The Middle East - particularly Gaza - was treated with brutal Realpolitik. Trump’s statements, flanked by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, signalled an unapologetic endorsement of aggressive Israeli military policy against Palestinians. The suggestion of turning Gaza into a resort was less a serious plan and more a grotesque presentation, that greenlighted ethnic cleansing and perhaps outright genocide.

Yet Netanyahu failed to gain support for his plans to bomb Iran. Surprisingly, Trump embarked on talks with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Even if these talks fail and lead to war, they demonstrate who holds authority in US-Israeli relations, as I wrote a couple of weeks ago.¹

Last week’s removal of Mike Waltz as national security advisor was also linked to his unauthorised talks with Netanyahu regarding potential military action against Iran - conversations that took place without Trump’s knowledge and in defiance of his current approach. This breach reportedly angered Trump and was viewed as an affront to his authority, which he is known not to tolerate.

Netanyahu consistently advocates the complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, including a permanent ban on uranium enrichment and ballistic missile development. However, the Trump administration’s current approach appears more flexible - a bizarre attempt at revival of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action - the deal from which Trump withdrew seven years ago, focusing on limiting enrichment levels and extending verification measures rather than pursuing total elimination.

On Ukraine, there was a definite continuity between campaign rhetoric and governing policy. Trump appeared ready to trade land for peace, accepting Russian control of Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine in exchange for a peace deal. Trump famously browbeat Volodymyr Zelensky into submission and even extracted a $500 billion rare earths deal. The question remains whether Nato or other forces would be stationed along any buffer zone. The underlying goal was less about resolving the conflict and more about extracting tribute - from Europe in the form of military spending and arms purchases. Trump aimed to shift more of the burden onto European allies, pulling them into greater dependence on US defence contractors.

China

The broader geopolitical posture focused on confronting China. Both Republicans and Democrats have squarely framed China as the primary strategic rival. In that light, even US Ukraine policy was understood as part of a global chessboard, where weakening Russia - or drawing it away from China - served a larger objective. Some on the left misread this as support for Ukrainian sovereignty: in reality, it was more about gaining US dominance in Eurasia.

Here, Chinese assessments of Trump’s first 100 days are of particular interest. Officially, Chinese analysts project a calm, confident stance, emphasising their own country’s strategic programme and long-term planning. Rather than claiming victory, they urge China to “do its own thing well” - to focus on internal stability and development to withstand US pressure.

There is cautious optimism about China’s ability to counter Trump’s first 100 days by stimulating its own economy. China’s internal political dynamics reveal growing class contradictions, even as official ideology avoids such language. The working class has become increasingly restive, facing both domestic capitalist pressures and global economic uncertainty. However, a summary of articles written on the occasion of Trump’s 100 days in office, reveals different solutions proposed by Chinese thinkers:

• Yu Yongding, a prominent Chinese economist, advocates increased investment in infrastructure and technology as a means to stimulate economic growth, preferring these over consumption.
• Others recommend government intervention to address local debt and housing issues.
• Some argue that China should assume global leadership in trade by lowering tariffs and promoting multilateralism - primarily to win over the global south. Others suggest exporting capital to replicate development abroad.

Despite Trump’s bravado about his first few months in power, most see the US in secular decline, reflecting internal dysfunction. Views on Trump range from scathing to analytical - some see him as erratic, others as strategically consistent with past US policy. Most agree that US-China relations are structurally adversarial.

Chinese commentators remain sceptical of a US-Russia alliance (said to be a “reverse Nixon” strategy). Feng Yujun, a prominent Chinese scholar specialising in Russian and Eurasian affairs and a professor at Beijing University, warns that Russia is inherently aggressive and a destabilising global force, even suggesting it helped install Trump as a strategic asset.

Internal policy

Domestically, the Trump movement has many liberals and leftists drawing comparisons with ‘fascism’ - a label that often masks more than it reveals. However, unlike historical European fascism, which arose to crush a threatening working class, the American proletariat today poses no such threat. Trumpism is better understood as a form of authoritarian populism, emerging at a time of US decline. The goal is reasserting US hegemony and reversing relative decline through coercive means - tariffs, deportations, sanctions, military pressure - and political spectacle.

Trump’s ambition, if not always formalised, leans toward creating a kind of super-presidency. With weakened congressional oversight, a willingness to defy the judiciary and aggressive media manipulation, the role of the US president already borders on monarchical. Trump’s flirtation with the idea of a third term, though constitutionally barred and occasionally denied, underscores this trend.

Any serious analysis of American politics today must examine the fractures within the ruling class - between big tech, finance, fossil fuels and the military-industrial complex - and how those divisions shape national policy. Labels like ‘fascism’ oversimplify things - even if you assume they are somehow accurate. Understanding the actual contradictions offers a clearer path forward for any opposition - not least that of the working class.

1. ‘Netanyahu is rebuffed’ Weekly Worker April 24: weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1535/netanyahu-is-rebuffed.↩︎