Latest news with #ExecutiveOrder14257
Time of India
19-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Decoding the US Tariff Exclusion List—What it means for Indian exporters
Live Events Source: Authors' calculations based on trade data from WITS (UN COMTRADE) and technological category classification from UNCTAD The Trump-era tariffs that took effect on April 2, 2025, were largely driven by the substantial trade deficit of the US, which reached $1.48 trillion in 2023. To regulate this massive merchandise trade imbalance, the White House issued Executive Order 14257 on April 2, 2025, introducing reciprocal tariffs on the US's trading partners. The Executive Order includes two Annexes, with Annex I outlining additional ad valorem tariffs imposed on trading partners based on the US trade deficit , including a 26% tariff on India. Alarmed by the move, India initiated bilateral talks with the US even before the April 9 announcement of the 90-day tariff suspension. This headline figure, however, only reveals a portion of the broader what has not received adequate attention is the contents of Annex II of the order that provides an exclusion list, which includes items that are completely exempted from the additional tariffs. The list identifies products, down to the 8-digit level of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), that are exempt from the additional duties. An essential layer of nuance lies in the scope of these II specified 1,039 tariff lines under the exclusion list. Subsequently, the Presidential Memorandum announced on April 11, 2025, further expanded these carve-outs to include a wide range of high-tech goods, including semiconductors, smartphones, automatic data processing machines, transistors, and integrated circuits. Of the entire exclusion list, the top products included organic chemicals, accounting for 26.0%, followed by wood products at 14.1%, inorganic chemicals at 9.9%, copper at 7.6%, mineral fuels at 6.6%, electrical machinery at 5.6%, and pharmaceuticals at 5.3%.India's exports of items on the exclusion list accounted for 29.1% of its total exports to the US, offering a reprieve from the new tariffs and highlighting significant export opportunities. Among India's top exports to the US were gems and jewellery at 13.4%, electrical machinery at 13%, pharmaceuticals at 10%, and mineral fuels at 8.6%—together comprising a substantial share of the overall trade. A number of these items will benefit from exemption under the newly implemented tariffs. Smartphones, one of India's top exports to the US, have been spared, and nearly half of India's electrical item exports by value now escape the tariff dragnet. For the Indian pharma sector , 99.7% of its export value has been exempted. Also, Indian exports of mineral fuels are completely immune to the additional duties. The exclusion list, however, does not offer any relief to India's largest export item to the US—gem and jewellery, which will remain largely exposed to the brunt of the new interesting insight emerges when items in the exclusion list are classified by the level of skill and technology into four main groups: primary and agro-based manufactures, resource-based manufactures, low-technology manufactures, and medium- and high-technology manufactures. Almost 75% of the exclusion list belongs to medium- and high-tech manufactures, and resource-based manufactures (comprising largely of metals, mineral products, and organic chemicals), thus protecting India's exports worth almost $21.5 is not surprising, given that India's exports to the US have undergone structural changes in the past few years. In 2010, low-technology manufactures accounted for 36% of India's exports, forming the largest chunk. However, by 2023, the share of these items in India's exports fell to 26%. On the other hand, medium- and high-technology manufactures accounted for 31% of India's exports in 2010 but increased to 42% in 2023. Low-technology products have, in fact, drawn the highest tariffs at 29% and remain the most exposed under the new tariff the US exclusion list has helped buffer a significant portion of India's exports from the tariff shock, the volatility surrounding the new Trump-era trade policy raises concerns. With the administration's unpredictable stance, the reintroduction of currently exempt items into the tariff net remains a real Taneja is professor at the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER); Nirlipta Rath and Vasudha Upreti are Research Assistants at ICRIER. Views are personal.
Economic Times
19-05-2025
- Business
- Economic Times
Decoding the US Tariff Exclusion List—What it means for Indian exporters
Reuters India's exports of items on the exclusion list accounted for 29.1% of its total exports to the US, offering a reprieve from the new tariffs and highlighting significant export opportunities. The Trump-era tariffs that took effect on April 2, 2025, were largely driven by the substantial trade deficit of the US, which reached $1.48 trillion in 2023. To regulate this massive merchandise trade imbalance, the White House issued Executive Order 14257 on April 2, 2025, introducing reciprocal tariffs on the US's trading partners. The Executive Order includes two Annexes, with Annex I outlining additional ad valorem tariffs imposed on trading partners based on the US trade deficit, including a 26% tariff on India. Alarmed by the move, India initiated bilateral talks with the US even before the April 9 announcement of the 90-day tariff suspension. This headline figure, however, only reveals a portion of the broader what has not received adequate attention is the contents of Annex II of the order that provides an exclusion list, which includes items that are completely exempted from the additional tariffs. The list identifies products, down to the 8-digit level of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), that are exempt from the additional duties. An essential layer of nuance lies in the scope of these II specified 1,039 tariff lines under the exclusion list. Subsequently, the Presidential Memorandum announced on April 11, 2025, further expanded these carve-outs to include a wide range of high-tech goods, including semiconductors, smartphones, automatic data processing machines, transistors, and integrated circuits. Of the entire exclusion list, the top products included organic chemicals, accounting for 26.0%, followed by wood products at 14.1%, inorganic chemicals at 9.9%, copper at 7.6%, mineral fuels at 6.6%, electrical machinery at 5.6%, and pharmaceuticals at 5.3%. India's exports of items on the exclusion list accounted for 29.1% of its total exports to the US, offering a reprieve from the new tariffs and highlighting significant export opportunities. Among India's top exports to the US were gems and jewellery at 13.4%, electrical machinery at 13%, pharmaceuticals at 10%, and mineral fuels at 8.6%—together comprising a substantial share of the overall trade. A number of these items will benefit from exemption under the newly implemented tariffs. Smartphones, one of India's top exports to the US, have been spared, and nearly half of India's electrical item exports by value now escape the tariff dragnet. For the Indian pharma sector, 99.7% of its export value has been exempted. Also, Indian exports of mineral fuels are completely immune to the additional duties. The exclusion list, however, does not offer any relief to India's largest export item to the US—gem and jewellery, which will remain largely exposed to the brunt of the new tariffs. An interesting insight emerges when items in the exclusion list are classified by the level of skill and technology into four main groups: primary and agro-based manufactures, resource-based manufactures, low-technology manufactures, and medium- and high-technology manufactures. Almost 75% of the exclusion list belongs to medium- and high-tech manufactures, and resource-based manufactures (comprising largely of metals, mineral products, and organic chemicals), thus protecting India's exports worth almost $21.5 billion. Distribution of value of exports and number of product lines in exclusion list by technology and skill category: This is not surprising, given that India's exports to the US have undergone structural changes in the past few years. In 2010, low-technology manufactures accounted for 36% of India's exports, forming the largest chunk. However, by 2023, the share of these items in India's exports fell to 26%. On the other hand, medium- and high-technology manufactures accounted for 31% of India's exports in 2010 but increased to 42% in 2023. Low-technology products have, in fact, drawn the highest tariffs at 29% and remain the most exposed under the new tariff regime. While the US exclusion list has helped buffer a significant portion of India's exports from the tariff shock, the volatility surrounding the new Trump-era trade policy raises concerns. With the administration's unpredictable stance, the reintroduction of currently exempt items into the tariff net remains a real possibility. Nisha Taneja is professor at the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER); Nirlipta Rath and Vasudha Upreti are Research Assistants at ICRIER. Views are personal.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
12-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
US, China declare 90-day tariff pause, agree to mutual reductions
Amid ongoing discussions regarding a trade agreement, the United States and China have jointly declared a 90-day pause on a portion of their existing tariffs, as outlined in a statement released by both countries. In a media address, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the two countries had agreed not only to a temporary suspension but also to a notable reduction in current tariff levels. According to Bessent, the tariff cuts will be reciprocal, with each side reducing rates by 115 percentage points. During this 90-day window, the US will lower its tariffs on Chinese goods from 145 per cent to 30 per cent. In a similar move, China will bring down tariffs on American imports from 125 per cent to 10 per cent. "We have reached an agreement on a 90-day pause and substantially moved down the tariff levels." He characterised the talks with Chinese officials as productive and emphasised that "both sides showed great respect," Bessent said. US Trade Representative hints at swift trade agreement US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said, "It's important to understand how quickly we were able to come to agreement, which reflects that perhaps the differences were not so large as far as maybe thought." Greer said one of the Trump administration's main goals is to reduce the trade gap with China, which reached a record $263 billion the previous year. 'We're confident that the deal we struck with our Chinese partners will help us to resolve, work towards resolving that national emergency,' he said. Also Read A joint statement issued by US and China read, "The parties commit to take the following actions by May 14, 2025: The United States will (i) modify the application of the additional ad valorem rate of duty on articles of China (including articles of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Macau Special Administrative Region) set forth in Executive Order 14257 of April 2, 2025, by suspending 24 percentage points of that rate for an initial period of 90 days, while retaining the remaining ad valorem rate of 10 per cent on those articles pursuant to the terms of said Order..." The statement further said, "China will (i) modify accordingly the application of the additional ad valorem rate of duty on articles of the United States set forth in Announcement of the Customs Tariff Commission of the State Council No. 4 of 2025, by suspending 24 percentage points of that rate for an initial period of 90 days, while retaining the remaining additional ad valorem rate of 10 per cent on those articles, and removing the modified additional ad valorem rates of duty on those articles imposed by Announcement of the Customs Tariff Commission of the State Council No. 5 of 2025 and Announcement of the Customs Tariff Commission of the State Council No. 6 of 2025; and (ii) adopt all necessary administrative measures to suspend or remove the non-tariff countermeasures taken against the United States since April 2, 2025." US-China tariff war Since assuming office in January, Donald Trump has increased tariffs on US imports from China to 145 per cent, building on the levies he had introduced during his previous term and those later implemented by the Biden administration. In response, China imposed restrictions on the export of certain rare earth minerals — crucial for American defence and consumer electronics industries — and raised tariffs on US products to 125 per cent. This escalating trade conflict effectively froze close to $600 billion in bilateral trade, disrupted global supply chains, raised concerns over stagflation, and led to some job losses, Reuters reported.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
12-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
US, China agree to bring down reciprocal tariffs by 115% for 90 days
Amid ongoing discussions regarding a trade agreement, the United States and China have jointly declared a 90-day pause on a portion of their existing tariffs, as outlined in a statement released by both countries. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent revealed that the two nations had agreed not only to a temporary suspension but also to a notable reduction in current tariff levels. According to Bessent, the tariff cuts will be reciprocal, with each side reducing rates by 115 per cent. During this 90-day window, the US will lower its tariffs on Chinese goods from 145 percent to 30 per cent. In a similar move, China will bring down tariffs on American imports from 125 per cent to 10 per cent. Bessent said, "We have reached an agreement on a 90-day pause and substantially moved down the tariff levels." He characterised the talks with Chinese officials as productive and emphasised that "both sides showed great respect." Greer hints at swift trade agreement US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said, It's important to understand how quickly we were able to come to agreement, which reflects that perhaps the differences were not so large as far as maybe thought." He said that one of the Trump administration's main goals is to reduce the trade gap with China, which reached a record $263 billion the previous year. 'We're confident that the deal we struck with our Chinese partners will help us to resolve, work towards resolving that national emergency,' Greer said. In a joint statement, the nations said, "The parties commit to take the following actions by May 14, 2025: The United States will (i) modify the application of the additional ad valorem rate of duty on articles of China (including articles of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Macau Special Administrative Region) set forth in Executive Order 14257 of April 2, 2025, by suspending 24 percentage points of that rate for an initial period of 90 days, while retaining the remaining ad valorem rate of 10 per cent on those articles pursuant to the terms of said Order; and (ii) removing the modified additional ad valorem rates of duty on those articles imposed by Executive Order 14259 of April 8, 2025 and Executive Order 14266 of April 9, 2025." The statement further said, "China will (i) modify accordingly the application of the additional ad valorem rate of duty on articles of the United States set forth in Announcement of the Customs Tariff Commission of the State Council No. 4 of 2025, by suspending 24 percentage points of that rate for an initial period of 90 days, while retaining the remaining additional ad valorem rate of 10 per cent on those articles, and removing the modified additional ad valorem rates of duty on those articles imposed by Announcement of the Customs Tariff Commission of the State Council No. 5 of 2025 and Announcement of the Customs Tariff Commission of the State Council No. 6 of 2025; and (ii) adopt all necessary administrative measures to suspend or remove the non-tariff countermeasures taken against the United States since April 2, 2025." US-China tariff war Since assuming office in January, Donald Trump has increased tariffs on US imports from China to 145 per cent, building on the levies he had introduced during his previous term and those later implemented by the Biden administration. In response, China imposed restrictions on the export of certain rare earth minerals — crucial for American defence and consumer electronics industries — and raised tariffs on US products to 125 per cent. This escalating trade conflict effectively froze close to $600 billion in bilateral trade, disrupted global supply chains, raised concerns over stagflation, and led to some job losses, Reuters reported.
Yahoo
26-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The week the blob derailed Project Trump
The US invasion of Iraq began with a massive show of force. Almost 2,000 airstrikes and missile launches preceded a sweeping ground offensive towards Baghdad. A little under three weeks later, the Iraqi military was defeated. Victory was declared. Except that it was not until eight years and eight months later that the last American soldiers left. The initial rush to capture the centre had succeeded; the long war against the insurgency that followed proved harder. Donald Trump's second term as president is following a similar trajectory. His inauguration was followed by a shock and awe campaign of executive orders starting on day one. He has now issued 124, a figure which is likely to be dwarfed by the time he leaves office. These orders – directing the resources and focus of the federal government – have covered the full spectrum of policy areas, creating and erasing policies with the stroke of a pen. Funding for USAID has been slashed, DEI initiatives rolled back and a full-scale effort to deport illegal migrants commenced. Sweeping tariffs have been imposed on imports, with China singled out for particularly brutal rates, and tens of thousands of federal government employees laid off. Rather than go through the time-consuming process of passing legislation through Congress Trump has pursued his agenda by means under his direct control, seeking to reshape the American state and crush or bypass what he sees as the 'Deep State', 'swamp' or 'Blob' at the heart of US politics: the accretion of laws, organisations and incentives that obstructed his agenda during his first term in office. He was joined in this effort by tech billionaire Elon Musk, heading up a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), aiming to cut spending and the size of the federal government, and backed by extensive research and planning from organisations across the Right. A combination of sheer volume of blows, focused efforts, and Trump's approach to negotiation would yield results and fast, leaving opposition disoriented and fragmented. Legislative shock and awe. Yet as the opening 100 days of Trump's second term draw to a close, his radical agenda has this week been blunted or repelled on multiple fronts. Listen to the opposition and his tariffs plan is coming apart at the seams; the drive for peace in Ukraine is a sell-out to Putin; Elon Musk is reducing his commitment to DOGE, and lawyers opposed to the Republican agenda have racked up a string of legal victories in a concerted campaign of 'lawfare' aiming to undermine, overturn, or otherwise obstruct his executive orders. For the first time, whether Trump can push through his agenda is an open question. If he fails, analysts may well look back on this week as the moment serious cracks appeared. Because the blob is not rolling over. The blob is fighting back. If you were looking for a single document summarising Trump's experience in office to date, you could do a lot worse than Executive Order 14257: the implementation of the 'Liberation Day' tariffs targeting the 'lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships' that posed 'an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States'. Everything is there: the use of executive authority to make changes with immense and sweeping impact, legal rationales based on national security concerns and the declaration of a national emergency, the desire for greater independence and autonomy, Trump's unique approach to negotiations, and the subsequent 'lawfare' backlash. The initial declaration resulted in chaos in the markets. Stocks plummeted, bond yields rose, and the value of the dollar took a major blow. China found itself in an escalating spiral of tit-for-tat tariffs that's set to see trade volumes at major US ports tumble. Growth forecasts were slashed, and consumer sentiment hit its second-lowest level since 1952. Almost immediately, the administration began to walk back its measures. Tariffs on partners other than China were suspended, and the rates for the latter cut. Signals were sent that the White House wanted to negotiate. Markets rose, and with them hopes that the global trading system could be recovered. To some degree, this is clearly what Trump wants. Create chaos, and exploit it. Make grand statements, create leverage, and drive hard bargains. As one adviser told CNN, 'talking deals with the most powerful people in the world when he's got all the cards and leverage is like air for him'. The problem is that what's unfolding doesn't make it look like he has all the cards. Beijing has not been cowed into concessions, with China and the US locked in a public spat over whether they're engaging in private negotiations. The White House, meanwhile, appears to be divided on whether the tariff plan is going to work and what the objective should be, with Elon Musk publicly and harshly criticising trade adviser Peter Navarro, and the Wall Street Journal reporting that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick talked Trump into a partial climbdown. And then, of course, there's the lawfare. A dozen US states have filed a lawsuit against the administration arguing that the tariff policy is illegal, following on the heels of cases brought by private sector businesses. It's difficult to think of a better summary of the current problems facing Trump's efforts to reshape the US state. Each of the problems here is mirrored and reflected in other policy areas. Lawsuits are a recurring theme in the swamp's fightback against Trump's agenda. The US system affords the President a great deal of authority; equally, it grants district county judges the ability to block the orders he hands down. In the words of Stephen Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor, this has led to 'unelected rogue regional judges… ordering the Administration to fund criminal sanctuaries for illegals and let the illegals vote' in 'a lawless usurpation of democracy itself'. In an extraordinary incident on Friday that appeared to suggest some were going further still, a Wisconsin judge was arrested at the courthouse where she works for allegedly obstructing efforts to arrest a migrant. The frustration is palpable: listen to the Republican sphere, and you will hear that activist judges are lodging injunctions, delaying the president's policies, and conniving with Left-leaning organisations acting to thwart the declared will of the American people. It's certainly true that large sections of the Left appear to hold the view that the Right attempting to govern should be illegal. As in Britain, the US body of laws is large and open to interpretation. The result is what appears to those on the Right to be a system that is weaponised against the President's policies. Equally, the White House has shown little inclination to adhere to precedent and policy, and a willingness to stretch the definitions of its powers in an attempt to enforce its will. At times, the strategy resembles that adopted by Elon Musk's companies; move quickly, treat lawsuits as a cost of doing business, and attempt to make sure that it's impossible for the courts to reverse your course. The most public series of disputes have surrounded the enforcement of US immigration law. Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee who is chief judge of the federal district court in Washington DC, has become a focus of particular ire over his attempts to block the deportation of 200 alleged Venezuelan gang members. Judge Boasberg issued an 11th-hour order temporarily blocking the deportations. The planes, however, were already in the air, bound for El Salvador and Honduras. Boasberg verbally ordered their return without success, and to the surprise of few followed this up by ruling that the use of the wartime Alien Enemies Act to enforce deportations was illegal. As it pursues its appeal, the Justice Department has asked the court to pause its order so it can continue with the deportation flights, arguing that Judge Boasberg's decision was 'fundamentally misconceived from the start, needlessly prompting a constitutional confrontation over criminal contempt that never should have arisen.' But until a decision is made, the flights remain on the ground and with them, 'some very bad people'. 'I hope we get cooperation from the courts, because, you know, we have thousands of people that are ready to go out, and you can't have a trial for all of these people,' as Trump put it this week. Meanwhile, human rights lawyers are preparing arguments that the eighth amendment bar on cruel and unusual punishment should prevent Americans being sent to El Salvador. It's a familiar problem from a British perspective: state systems breaking under the scale of the problem of enforcement and the multiple legal tripwires laid by legislators and judges past and present. What should be a matter of politics and policy becomes a matter of law, either due to the obstinacy of a defeated political movement that is unwilling to accept the legitimacy of its opponents rule, or the disdain held by the Right for conventional laws and the idea that rights should be upheld. Pick whichever argument appeals to you most; the end result is the same. The result is not swift action but politico-judicial ping-pong: seated behind his desk, Trump will sign an executive order only to see a district judge almost immediately move to block it. The administration then launches an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, which hears arguments from both sides. And until a ruling is made – which can take several weeks – the order remains effectively frozen, enforcement prohibited, and room is created for opposition organisations to prepare and take advantage. Take the inauguration day order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for those whose parents were in the US illegally or temporarily, a pledge Trump had made repeatedly during his campaign, and a law created in part by wide judicial interpretations of an amendment intended to protect the descendants of slaves. The order was almost immediately challenged in court by a coalition of organisations. At least 10 lawsuits were lodged by various plaintiffs, including 22 US state attorneys general, civil liberties and immigrants rights groups, and pregnant women. Soon after, four federal judges issued preliminary injunctions blocking its implementation nationwide. To appeal, the government turned to the Supreme Court. Today, almost five months after the President first signed the executive order, the edict remains entangled in the weeds of the US court system with no sign of a ruling. To the Left, this is an attempt to defend the rights of Americans. To the Right, it's a blatant attempt to delay or bar Trump from fulfilling his democratic mandate and his election pledges, pursuing through the courts victories they could not achieve at the ballot box. This perception may well be fuelling the particular strain of obstinacy directed at the courts. In the words of Harrison Field, special assistant to the president. 'No amount of Democrat obstruction will stop President Trump from delivering on the promises he made to the American people. Radical, out-of-touch Democrats should clean up the disasters they've created in their own states before trying to promote their failed policies to the rest of America.' Fighting words, but matched by the opposition. The American Civil Liberties Union is promising to 'put up the fight of the century' against Trump's policies. Having filed 424 legal challenges against the administration during his first term, we can expect a comparable workload for the courts over the coming years. As their website puts it, the organisation will 'fight to invalidate Trump administration policies that permit discrimination across the federal government, and to shut down the administration's efforts to require discrimination at the state and local levels'. Other policies, too, are facing a wave of obstructive lawsuits. In February civil rights organisations including the National Urban League and the AIDS Foundation of Chicago launched a challenge to executive orders seeking to stamp out diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs on the basis that the order infringes upon free speech and process. The case remains pending. Harvard, meanwhile, has become the frontline in the war on the campus. The Ivy League university was the first institution of its kind to reject White House demands to overhaul hiring, admissions and teaching practices, underpinned by officials' fears that colleges have become hotbeds of anti-Semitism. In turn, it is now suing the administration over the freezing of $2.2 billion in funding, winning the praise of former President Barack Obama in the process for 'rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom'. The limits of White House power are on display elsewhere far beyond the courtroom too. In Ukraine, early promises to end the war in a day have given way to visible frustration as Trump runs into the boundaries of his ability to impose a deal by fiat. The White House insists a deal is 'pretty close' but Putin clearly feels as if he has the upper hand, and knows that most of the pressure Trump can put on Zelensky would be of a form likely to benefit Russia on the battlefield. Zelensky, meanwhile, is unwilling to legally cede territory, bound by legal and constitutional ties, and seeks security assurances that Trump seems unwilling to give. Far from twisting the arms of both parties into accepting a negotiated settlement, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has started to make noises about America's readiness to 'move on' from negotiations entirely, pulling out of a planned meeting with European foreign ministers in London. Putin seems aware that, with Trump's patience limited, time is on his side. But 'waiting it out' is a tactic only display by domestic opponents as well. In Washington, Elon Musk is dialling down his commitment to DOGE. The billionaire's post is legally that of 'special government employee', which limits him to 130 days of government work in each year. And that allotment is rapidly running out. His partial departure will inevitably hamper Trump's mission to reshape the state: Musk and his track record of streamlining and reorganising business are unique and there is no comparable figure waiting to take the reins. Facing resistance from government departments, potential power struggles with other political appointees, and a swathe of lawsuits, DOGE's many enemies know its furious momentum is almost certain to fade without him. Just look, they say, at how Tesla's fortunes have plunged without the day-to-day attention of its founder. Resistance to a project as sweeping as Trump's was always going to materialise. Whether the White House will be able to overcome it is a different matter entirely. His international efforts – where the power of the US executive is less relevant – may be genuinely foundering. Trump's approach to negotiations is to make a maximal ask, cause chaos, and then offer a compromise that gets what he originally wanted. In Ukraine, the lopsided influence Trump can deploy is making it hard to reach a deal that all parties can accept. In trade negotiations with China, Xi Jinping appears unwilling to budge. At the same time, however, trade negotiations with other parties are continuing, and US companies are beginning to look at extricating themselves from China's embrace. If Trump can emerge from this crisis with improved access to the markets of friendly nations, a partial realignment away from China, and a de-escalation that avoids a domestic recession, he may well try to claim victory. Whether he will succeed is an open question. Similarly, if Trump can pressure Zelensky into accepting a bad deal for Ukraine, he will claim to have ended a war that began under Joe Biden and brought peace to Europe – even if it comes at a cost Western capitals would balk at. Domestically, suggests Jonathan Butcher of The Heritage Foundation, the aim of Trump's opponents is to force the Trumpian Right 'to take our eyes off the ball, take our eyes off of what the ultimate objective is'. At least so far as Harvard goes, he notes, the tactic is 'to absolve Harvard from any wrongdoing'. But if Trump's team can remain 'committed to things like upholding the civil rights law, and sticking to the core principles of defending anti-discrimination law and these clearly moral questions of protecting women and in private spaces, I think they're going to be fine.' If that optimism turns out to be true for Trump's broader agenda, the American president will be able to claim a monumental reshaping of the American state. If he is brought low, however, tramelled and contained by a thousand obstructions like Gulliver tied in knots by the Lilliputians, he will be forced to turn to more conventional political means. That means relying on notoriously fractious Republicans in Congress to pass legislation in pursuit of his goals before midterm elections. Radicalism will be out. Caution back in. Just 100 days in, then, the stakes could hardly be higher. If Trump falters now, he may be doomed to see out the rest of his term raging in futility against the structures that thwarted him. And that is precisely what his enemies are hoping for. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
