
Trump 2.0's first 100 days have not made America great
The first 100 days of a US presidency is a useful – but made-up – milestone. It was first made-up by Franklin Delano Roosevelt after his landslide 1932 presidential election victory. FDR promised a 'New Deal' for the American people, and from the moment he arrived in the White House in 1933 Roosevelt brought Congress into a three-month (100 days) session to pass 15 major bills, 77 new laws along with 99 executive orders to repair the damage of the Great Depression.
New public works, new dams on great rivers, and a new kind of vigour energised the US government and the American people. FDR's energy built the superpower.
It's too early to judge Donald Trump's presidency but his first 100 days is a landmark that will be reached on 30 April.
Already we can see a credibility gap between the boasts and few positive achievements. This has been blurred by the deluge of new words, new problems and new distractions.
It is therefore worth going through some of the most obvious yardsticks by which Mr Trump's 100 days may be measured to compare promises and potential future progress. Or otherwise.
First, Ukraine. The much publicised and not-much-believed Trump claim was to end the conflict in 24 hours. Almost 100 days later, US administration statements suggest Mr Trump may now 'pass' on bringing peace to Ukraine. Yet peace, not 'passing', was the Trump promise, even if no one, presumably not even Mr Trump himself, believed what he promised.
Then there is 'the most beautiful word' in the Trump dictionary, 'tariffs'. It's too soon to say what kind of effect the proposed (and subsequently changed, reconfigured or withdrawn) tariffs will eventually have, although trade experts use words like 'uncertainty' and 'dislocation'.
What we can say is that the greatest geo-strategic competitor of the US, China, seems energised by the prospect of a Trump tariff battle. China commentators have reported that Chinese President Xi Jinping's government appears to see trade dislocation and economic consequences as very unfortunate but perhaps ultimately bringing some political advantages.
Beijing, with a Communist government, is standing up for free trade against protectionism. In countries as far apart geographically and politically as South and East Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and Europe, the Trump Tariffs can make the future look like a contest between protectionist Trumpland and the (mostly) free-trade Rest of the World.
Even countries that have at times difficult relationships with Beijing are sharing some Trump tariff pain. Market reaction includes descriptive words like 'turmoil' or 'uncertainty' or 'jitters,' and as former UK Conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher always lectured the British people: 'You can't buck the market'. Mr Trump may prove otherwise. I wouldn't count on it.
One other key foreign policy ambition is worth touching upon, Mr Trump wants US expansion, specifically targeting Canada, Greenland and Panama. In his address to Congress in March he said that 'to further enhance our national security, my administration will be reclaiming the Panama Canal'.
No member of the Trump administration has explained what 'reclaiming' means. There are real concerns in Washington about alleged Chinese influence in the Canal Zone with unconfirmed reports of the US military being ordered to draw up contingency plans for possible action.
I was in Panama reporting for the BBC on the US invasion of Panama some years ago and can reveal the utterly unsurprising truth: the US has always had plans to seize control of the Panama Canal if this vital strategic asset for international trade ever comes under threat. No shock there.
Greenland, home to vital US military bases, has also always been a significant strategic interest for the Pentagon since 1945. Here, however, the Trump administration in sending an uninvited Vice President JD Vance to Greenland managed a remarkable trick by irritating both independence-minded native Greenlanders and also the old colonial power, Denmark. This was a text-book study in dim diplomacy.
Finally, the Trump 100 days report card ends with Canada. There Mr Trump has created another kind of unity. He has united Canadians around patriotism, the maple leaf and Canadian sovereignty. This has given an enormous electoral boost to Prime Minister Mark Carney 's Liberal party.
They were on course to lose power but in standing up to Mr Trump's ambitions and tariffs Mr Carney is now considered the favourite to win the general election on April 28. In wanting Canada as the 51st state, as Mr Carney puts it, Mr Trump has a 'strategy to break us so America can own us. We are over the shock of the betrayal. But we should never forget the lessons'.
We can all add our own reflections on Mr Trump's first 100-day achievements but for now there isn't space to discuss the attempted reformation of the entire US government, personnel changes, the attacks on universities, US-EU relations, Gaza, Iran and many other hugely important topics.
Two big domestic political questions also remain. Have the money markets really stabilised? And are Republicans in Congress really happy with how things are going? We'll find out soon.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Middle East Eye
2 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
How US leaders, lawmakers and civil society reacted to Israel's strikes on Iran
Israel attacked Iran early Friday morning, striking, among other sites, nuclear facilities across the country and killing high-ranking Iranian generals. Later on Friday, Iran launched a barrage of missiles targeting Israel, with several making impact in Tel Aviv. The wave of missiles continued at the time of writing. Israel's surprise attack killed at least 78 people, including Hossein Salami, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Israel struck residential areas, and civilians were among the dead, according to Iranian media. Israel's brazen attack has drawn condemnation from several countries around the world. In the US, however, the response has been mixed. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Several lawmakers, on both sides of the aisle, expressed support for the attacks, while others, including sections of civil society, have raised concerns over how the developments could usher in more instability in the region, already heaving under a catastrophic Israeli war in Gaza. Over 55,000 Palestinians have been killed as a result of Israel's war on Gaza, which several countries, as well as many international rights groups and experts, now qualify as an act of genocide. Here is a wrap of how American politicians, lawmakers and segments of civil society have reacted to Israel's attacks on Iran. Politicians and lawmakers Secretary of State Marco Rubio denied American involvement in the attack and warned Iran against targeting US forces in the region. Despite Rubio's comments that the US was not involved in the attack, President Donald Trump appeared to issue statements that suggested the White House was fully on board with Israel's actions on Iran. "There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end. Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire,' Trump said Friday. Likewise, Republican Party officials appeared united in support of Israel's attacks. Israel's attacks on Iran amount to crime of aggression, legal scholars say Read More » Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, a Republican, applauded the attacks and posted on social media that 'Israel IS right—and has a right—to defend itself'. Senator Lindsey Graham also praised the strikes, writing on social media, 'hats off to Israel for one of the most impressive military strikes and covert operations in Israeli history'. Democrats appeared more divided between pro-Israel hardliners and progressives. Representative John Fetterman from Pennsylvania applauded the attack, posting 'Beepers v2.0 I love it. 🇮🇱' He was referencing the surprise attack Israel carried out against Hezbollah last September, in which exploding pagers killed dozens and maimed thousands, including children. Representative Ritchie Torres from New York, known to be a vehement supporter of Israel, also praised the attack, writing, 'Israel is not the aggressor. It is defending itself against an existential threat that long predates the present preemptive strike.' Torres also noted Iran's support for Hamas as a justification for the Israeli strikes. Other Democrats, such as Chris Murphy and Ilhan Omar, condemned Israel's strikes against Iran. Democrat Jack Reed, a leading member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, decried Israel's assault as 'a reckless escalation that risks igniting regional violence'. Advocacy groups Several advocacy groups in the US have spoken out strongly against the attacks. The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) was quick to condemn the Israeli attacks. 'This strike was unprovoked and illegal under international law. It has needlessly put many innocent people in mortal danger,' NIAC wrote in a statement on Friday morning. Similarly, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair) criticised the strikes and urged the Trump administration to halt military aid to Israel. Israel's attack on Iran: How the world reacted Read More » In a statement issued on Friday, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) said that Israel's targeted assassination campaign against Iranian military leaders, prominent scientists, and academics "once again displays its unrestrained campaigns of psychological terror, further destabilizing regional security and undermining global peace pleas". "Israel, who has the largest nuclear arsenal in the region and who refuses to become party to non-proliferation treaties, is a rogue state determined to drag the United States into a constant state of war," the ADC said. The ADC also said that Americans were against military action against Iran. It cited a May 2025 poll conducted by the University of Maryland that found that 69 percent of Americans, including two-thirds of Republicans, preferred a negotiated agreement to military action against Iran's nuclear programme. Several Jewish organisations - both pro-Zionist and anti-occupation - issued statements of support and condemnation. Morriah Kaplan, from IfNotNow, said that the Israeli military's "reckless attack on Iran needlessly puts the region on the brink of all-out war". "The lives of Iranians, Israelis, Palestinians, and people throughout the region who do not want war are at grave risk. "Instead of warmongering, the Trump administration and the international community must do everything in its power to deescalate and to stop providing the weapons Israel is using as they threaten a broader regional war," Kapalan added. Meanwhile, the pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League (ADL) supported the attacks, saying they were conducted in self-defence and were necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran denies seeking the development of nuclear weapons. The Palestinian Youth Movement wrote that 'tonight's airstrikes demonstrate clearly that Zionism and Imperialism's war is one not against Palestine alone, but a war against the entire region'.


Middle East Eye
2 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Whether with a green light or grudging acceptance, Trump enters war with Iran
After Israel pummelled Iran in an unprecedented attack and the Islamic Republic launched a barrage of missiles targeting Tel Aviv, US President Donald Trump has portrayed himself as above the fray. 'I gave them 60 days and they didn't meet it,' Trump told The New York Post on Friday. 'Today's 61, you know. Today's day 61.' Trump was referencing Israeli media reports from March 2025 that said he had sent Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei a letter laying out a two-month window to agree to a new nuclear deal, or face an attack. The US and Iran held their first round of nuclear talks on 12 April. For two months, Trump used the threat of Israeli strikes as a form of leverage against Iran, as his administration tried to impose an agreement on it that would strip it of all ability to enrich uranium. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters On Friday, Trump answered the question that had been gnawing at diplomats, analysts and even intelligence officials: whether the president of the United States would give the green light to an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear programme. 'Israel struck for many reasons - fear Iran's program might soon enter a zone of immunity; [a] risk ready Israeli prime minister for whom striking Iran was a lifelong mission. But the key was Trump's willingness to green light the attacks - or at least not to say no,' Aaron David Miller, a former State Department Middle East negotiator, wrote on X. CIA briefed on unilateral Israeli attack plans It's clear Trump knew about Israel's plans for some time. Middle East Eye revealed earlier this month that the CIA was briefed in April and May on Israeli plans to unilaterally attack Iran's nuclear sites. Israel's Target Systems Analysis and battle plan for cyberattacks combined with precision strikes without any direct US involvement 'impressed' the administration. But Trump's behaviour in recent months gave observers, and potentially the Iranians, the impression that he would continue to resist Netanyahu's very public lobbying to go along with strikes. Israel's attacks on Iran amount to crime of aggression, legal scholars say Read More » Trump surprised Netanyahu in April when he announced at a White House meeting that he would begin direct talks with Iran on curbing its nuclear programme. In early May, he brushed aside his hawkish national security advisor, Mike Waltz, and then snubbed Netanyahu on a visit to the Middle East. For good measure, Trump even cut a unilateral ceasefire with the Houthis in Yemen that left out Israel. On the eve of the Israeli attack, Trump said he did not believe it was 'imminent' but was 'something that could very well happen'. His own Middle East envoy and top negotiator, Steve Witkoff, was set to meet his Iranian counterparts on Sunday in Oman for a sixth round of nuclear talks. The Iranians say they will not attend the talks, but Trump continues to call for a negotiated deal, under the scimitar of Israeli fire. Israel's 'trump card' He warned on Friday of 'even more brutal' attacks to follow and threatened Tehran to 'make a deal…before there is nothing left'. Experts say that despite Trump's call for more negotiations, Netanyahu has effectively torpedoed the diplomatic route. 'Trump's talk of a return to a nuclear deal is likely to be untenable now' - David Schenker, Washington Institute for Near East Policy 'Trump's talk of a return to a nuclear deal is likely to be untenable now,' David Schenker, a former senior official in Trump's first administration and expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told MEE. While Trump has left little doubt that he knew about the strikes, he has been more circumspect on whether they were his preferred outcome. The US is Israel's closest ally and top military backer, but US officials familiar with Israel's plans say the US had little leverage to prevent an Israeli attack, short of the type of full-scale public censure that no US president has ever issued against Israel, like halting all arms sales. 'If Israel faces what it deems an existential crisis, it could, in theory, threaten to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran,' a former senior Trump administration official told MEE. Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons, but has never publicly acknowledged it. 'Israel can't be compared to Ukraine,' the official added, referring to the other US ally Trump has tried to rein in at war with Russia. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons after the fall of the Soviet Union. Besides weaponry, one of the US's greatest forms of leverage with its partners is its mastery of intelligence collection, particularly through satellites and intercepting and analysing communications. But Israel has spent decades penetrating the Islamic Republic of Iran and is not dependent on US intelligence there, experts say. 'Look what we saw in Lebanon. Israel has had two primary target sets over the last two decades. One was Hezbollah and the other was Iran,' Schenker told MEE, emphasising how Israel eliminated Hezbollah's senior leadership in 2024 and left the group in disarray. Does Trump trust Israel? Although Trump has tried to frame the Israeli attack as complementing his hard-nosed diplomacy, one Gulf official told MEE they believed the White House was deeply wary of its ally. 'The administration does not view Israel as trustworthy,' the official said. Prem Kumar, who was a senior director for the Middle East and North Africa under the Obama administration, told MEE that Netanyahu had 'sidelined' Trump. What is stopping Israel from bombing Iran's nuclear sites? Read More » 'My sense is that Trump is not pleased with how this ended up. He is trying to use the idea of resuscitating the talks to save face. The idea that the Iranians would resume negotiations is ludicrous. Trump looks weak,' added Kumar, now a Middle East expert at DGA-Albright Stonebridge Group advisory. Regardless of whether Trump gave Israel a green light or tacit approval to attack Iran, experts say that he is now tethered to Israel's military campaign. Asked by Reuters on Friday whether he would support the US's closest Middle East ally, he replied: 'We've been very close to Israel," he said. "We're their number one ally by far." "We'll see what happens," he added. The US came to Israel's defence in April and October 2024 when Iran and Israel exchanged direct fire. Tehran choreographed its attack heavily in April and somewhat in October, experts said. The best Trump can hope for is that Israel replicates its success with its takedown of Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2024. The worst outcome is that he brings the US into the very type of Middle East "forever war" he was elected not to.

Gulf Today
3 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Trump's curveball at Japan tea giant's US expansion
Kentaro Okasaka and John Geddie, Reuters Top Japanese tea brand Ito En's latest push to win over health-conscious US customers with its traditional unsweetened brew has hit a new road bump: President Donald Trump's trade tariffs. The company, which splashed out on a tie-up with Major League Baseball star Shohei Ohtani and launched a less bitter tea to capture a bigger slice of the lucrative growth market, is now debating whether to hike prices or move some production across the Pacific, executives said in interviews with Reuters. The dilemmas facing Ito En can be found across Japan, the biggest foreign investor in the United States, as Tokyo's trade negotiators return to Washington this week to try and strike a deal to cushion the blow to its fragile economy. Makoto Ogi, Ito En's general manager of international business development, told Reuters the company may raise prices of its products in the US to compensate for Trump's 24% levy on Japanese goods set to come into force next month. The problem is their retailers and distributors may resist for fear of losing sales. "We may not be able to ask them to raise our prices despite what Trump is saying," he said. The last time Ito En raised prices in the US - by approximately 10% in 2022 - sales dropped by around 5%. The company said the decline reflected the price hike as well as factors such as COVID-19 that affected market conditions. The company is also considering making tea bags in the United States, and bottling drinks there rather than in Japan, Taiwan and Thailand as it does presently, Ogi and other executives explained during interviews in Tokyo. These details of the firm's potential plans to counter tariffs have not been previously reported. The executives did not disclose the costs of such moves. In its latest results released this month, Ito En reported its profit shrank by 8.2% in the year to April, but forecast an 11% jump this year. It set a modest 3.7% profit growth target for its US tea business, versus 20.7% growth achieved last year, an outlook partly related to tariffs, a company spokesperson said. Its shares rose to nearly a four-month high in the wake of the results, with its president later telling investors the forecasts were "conservative". Many Japanese firms have set up war rooms to chalk out plans to restructure supply chains or cut costs to offset tariffs and keep their US growth plans on track, said Mizuho Bank analyst Asuka Tatebayashi. A survey of 3,000 Japanese companies by export promotion organisation JETRO late last year before Trump's tariffs found the level of interest in US markets at the highest in nearly a decade, with food and beverage companies like Ito En the most enthusiastic. "When you talk to companies in Japan, the US comes first," said Tatebayashi, adding that they face shrinking domestic demand and are generally cautious about expanding into riskier emerging markets. For Ito En, the US has long been a market it is eager to crack. Five years ago, Joshua Walker, the newly-appointed head of U.S. non-profit Japan Society, hosted Ito En's North America head Yosuke Honjo in his New York office. Honjo gestured to the green-coloured bottles of their flagship 'Oi Ocha' brand lining the shelves and said he wanted them to spread around the world like Coca-Cola's red bottle. "It was refreshing. Japanese companies would not normally have ambition of that type of grandeur," said Walker, recounting the executive's previously unreported remarks. Honjo, via a company spokesperson, confirmed the remarks. Founded in the 1960s by Honjo's father and uncle, Ito En has grown to dominate Japan's tea market, using around a quarter of the country's total crude tea production. Since expanding into the US in 2001, it has dabbled in selling sweet and flavoured tea varieties familiar to Americans. But more recently it has focused on the unsweetened tea popular in its home market, hoping to tap health-conscious customers and a boom in Japanese food and cultural exports. Honjo said growth has also been aided by a sharp rise in Asian Americans, estimated at nearly 25 million in 2023, or around 7% of the U.S. population, according to the Pew Research Center. Japan's exports of green tea surged 24.6% to 36.4 billion yen ($251 million) last year, with nearly half destined for the United States, official data showed. Some equity analysts like Jiang Zhu of Tokyo-based rating agency R&I have highlighted the high marketing cost of Ito En's international push at a time it faces tough competition at home from tea brands such as Coca-Cola's Ayataka. The company said it has around a 2% share of the US market for tea beverages, ranking eighth largest, with Unilever's Pure Leaf leading the sector. But it has a long way to catch up with the 3.9 billion gallons of Coca-Cola's trademark Coke drinks sold in the US last year, at only 3.1 million gallons by comparison, according to research firm Beverage Marketing Corporation. "Kikkoman's soy sauce is probably in every American household now, but it took about 50 years for it to become a part of the culture," said Akihiro Murase, Ito En's public relations manager, referencing the Japanese food manufacturer as a template for success. "We are not there yet but we would like to make unsweetened green tea a part of the food culture," he said.