The first 100 days of Trump’s second administration have passed, leaving even those who took him at his word during the campaign stunned by the furious pace of executive orders. His abrupt policy shifts – from erratic tariff announcements to threats on Ukraine’s sovereignty to Gaza resort development schemes – have destabilized the United States, and the world along with it. Yet, despite appearing chaotic, Trump has stayed true to his campaign promises as to how he’d carry out a second administration. Worse still, Trump’s quest for personal power and vengeance is diminishing the US’ global standing and making it a dispensable, less powerful country in the world.
While Trump is famously economical with the truth, his campaign promises have largely materialized. The one big exception is Project 2025 – the 900-page right-wing policy blueprint produced by the Heritage Foundation – which he publicly disavowed during the campaign when Democrats pointed to its radical proposals that were unpopular with voters. Yet, his administration is faithfully executing the reciprocal tariffs and decoupling from China it proposes, along with a defense focus on power competition with China and a shift away from Europe and NATO, and calls for conditional support for Ukraine.
Beyond Project 2025 denialism, Trump was up front about how he saw and wanted to exercise power during a second term. He mused that he would be a “dictator on day one,” bragged about putting staggering tariffs in place, promised to end the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza on day one without any explanation of how, all while stoking social divisions.
Despite these clear warning signs, polling remained dead even until the very end and American voters handed Trump a clear victory on November 5th. His hardcore base not only believed him but currently support what he is doing. However, it also took moderate Republicans and independents to put Trump back in the White House, and these are the voters who didn’t quite believe his campaign claims and are now shocked at his presidency.
This is supported by a New York Times/Siena College poll released on April 25th which puts his approval rating at 42%, the lowest of any other president at the 100-day point with one exception – his own first term in office. This suggests that his core voters are sticking with him and giving him the benefit of the doubt despite the market turmoil. Also, despite zero relief on inflation, which was the big campaign promise.
Trump’s most ardent supporters have been suffering from the decline in manufacturing and the good jobs associated with it. Democrats and Republican politicians alike have failed to address these people’s problems, so these voters were angry and, rightfully, believed that the system does not work for them. For them, Trump’s proposal of blowing it all up seems like a necessary solution.
Yet the moderate Republicans and Independents who were crucial to his reelection are having buyer’s remorse, with a full 54% of voters in this poll disapproving of Trump’s performance in office so far. This is significant because most presidents get a “honeymoon” period of goodwill from voters. The question is: why did so many of these voters believe that his bark was worse than his bite?
An Unencumbered Trump II
Much of Trump’s 2016 bluster didn’t come to full fruition. A big difference between then and now is that none of the Republicans, such as Defense Secretary James Mattis, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, or White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, who were considered “guardrails” against his worst instincts in his first administration, are no longer around. Trump II now operates with yes-men and women who carry out orders without question.
This lack of internal resistance extends to the Republican-controlled Congress. During his first term, Trump had to, at times, contend with Republican dissent from senators such as John McCain, Jeff Flake, and Susan Collins – and Mitt Romney was the only Republican to vote in favor of a conviction on Trump’s first impeachment. Among this group, only Collins remains. In the House, notable opposition once came from Justin Amash, Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney, and John Katko. Now, the House sends out only the occasional grumble from Chip Roy and Thomas Massie.
Trump seems to think he can rewind the clock and return the U.S. to a manufacturing-based economy.
Trump’s administration and the writers of Project 2025 embrace a constitutional law theory called the “unitary executive theory.” This view holds that the president has full control over the executive branch and, by extension, that the president’s actions are inherently lawful. While this idea has roots in the founding of the country – Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America” – the framers also designed the Constitution with checks and balances to guard against abuses of concentrated power. Opponents of Trump argue that giving the executive such broad powers invites authoritarian overreach. It is a concern that seems quite relevant as we witness how Trump has brought about a constitutional crisis. The most flagrant example is his refusal to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. from El Salvador despite a Supreme Court order to do so.
Trump has also been empowered by the expanded presidential immunity granted bythe Supreme Court last July, including absolute immunity for core constitutional acts, and presumptive immunity for official acts that don’t fall under core constitutional powers. They didn’t, however, provide immunity for private conduct.
The New York Times-Siena College poll reveals that “voters believe President Trump is overreaching with his aggressive efforts to expand executive power, and they have deep doubts about some of the signature pieces of his agenda.” Sixty-six percent of those polled described Trump’s second term as “chaotic” and 59% describe it as “scary” and 42% find it “exciting.”
Negative public opinion can function as an important check on presidential power. Even if he is shameless, Trump wants to be liked and popular. Also, public opinion has a knock-on effect on other checks: Republicans in Congress are less likely to blindly serve a less popular Trump. It gives Democrats hope for winning back one or both houses in the 2026 midterm elections which would serve as an important check on Trump during the second half of his administration, making him a lame duck.
Trump and Power
Though it is his byline on the cover of The Art of the Deal, Trump doesn’t bring much art or nuance to the negotiation table. Instead, it’s all about an opening show of force, something he might call “leverage” as he blasts his counterparts with threats (sky-high tariffs, for example) before talks even begin. While often described as transactional, punitive is the better word.
It is Trump’s view that those countries that sell more to the U.S. than the U.S. sells to them, are somehow cheating the U.S. This mercantilist view contradicts traditional Republican Party doctrine that seeks more trade, lower tariffs, and open markets throughout the world. In fact, the last time the U.S. had a trade surplus was 1975. Since then, it has become a consumer economy, importing goods from abroad.
Thus far, Trump has mostly used tariffs as a tool to drag other countries to the negotiation table. But his limits became evident when he declared April 2 as “liberation day” along with a massive list of ham-fisted tariffs that seemed to be written by AI. Then on April 9, he announced a 90-day pause because people and markets were getting “yippy.” The result? A shaky economy and unsettled voters who’ve watched their retirement accounts shrink.
Alongside his belief that trade deficits are inherently harmful, Trump seems to think he can rewind the clock and return the U.S. to a manufacturing-based economy. A viral video – reportedly produced by Chinese state media – mocks this vision by portraying overweight Americans doing tedious factory labor associated with low-wage manufacturing in China. The satire is biting, yet the implication is serious: this certainly isn’t the future that the white working-class who voted for Trump had in mind.
The core of Trump’s theory is that tariffs coupled with a low dollar will bring manufacturing jobs back to America. This approach ignores the fact that the lion’s share of job losses have been due to technology. At the same time, he is actively attacking universities and their research programs.
As Trump proves that the U.S. is an unreliable security and trading partner, allies are diversifying. Even if Democrats can win back the House or Senate in 2026 and weaken his grip on U.S. foreign policy, there is no guarantee that allies will bounce back like they did after Bush or Trump’s first term.
Public opinion has also soured on Trump’s handling of the economy – particularly significant considering the economy and immigration were his two winning campaign themes. A New York Times-Siena College poll from a year ago showed that 64% of voters had fond memories of the economy under his leadership. Now only 43% of voters see it positively.
Every president, beginning with Eisenhower, has urged Europe to spend more on defense and rely less on the U.S. Trump has just been more belligerent about it. Now, with a war on the EU border, member states have finally gotten serious about defense. This shift could, in theory, save U.S. taxpayer dollars if Trump weren’t also demanding an increase in the U.S. defense budget.
Either way, U.S. hard power, both economic and military, is being eroded. Economically because U.S. trade partners will seek out others. Militarily because Europe is already an economic powerhouse in the world, with more military power, it will have much more hard power heft, making the U.S. less necessary.
Decimated U.S. Soft Power
Trump doesn’t seem to care for nor understand soft power, the power of attraction. For him, it’s all about leveraging resources – what assets or threats he can use to force the other actor into submission, regardless of whether they are longtime allies, such as Canada or Europe. His priority is a show of force and a lasting impression of strength rather than achieving anything specific.
Foreign tourists are avoiding the U.S. and students are looking to universities outside the U.S. for next fall, and not just because of visa issues. This will have lasting effects on America’s image in the world. Both Canada and Australia have recently elected leaders whose agendas are in stark contrast to Trump’s platform.
As Trump’s presidency wears on, the U.S. might find itself more able to focus on solving its problems at home, but increasingly unable to attract support or shape outcomes around the world. Being less dependent on an unstable U.S. may seem like a positive for Europe and the world, but there will be costs, especially as this shift will mean more interdependence with illiberal powers like China. Many countries, especially in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, are expanding trade with and seeking investment from China. More are also purchasing military equipment from China as there is growing defense cooperation among BRI countries.
Madeleine Albright famously called the U.S. the “indispensable nation.” Despite Trump’s hunger for power and a powerful United States of America, his actions are making the country more dispensable – and therefore, less powerful.
© IE Insights.
