Wednesday, April 30, 2025

 

Making sense of Trump's 1st 100 days, with the help of 9 simple charts


Reporter
YAHOO FINANCE

The first 100 days of Donald Trump’s second presidential term have been — to put it mildly — eventful.

Every president takes office with an ambitious list of ways that he will do things differently than the last guy, but no one in modern history has done so much, so rapidly, as Trump during the first three-plus months of his return to the White House.

We’ve seen the world’s richest man assume unprecedented power over how the government works, slashing the federal workforce and shuttering some agencies completely along the way. We’ve seen the global economic outlook turn on its head based on a single press conference. We’ve seen a stunning immigration crackdown that has pushed beyond the limits of what the law says the government can do. We’ve seen the administration locked in a perpetual battle with the courts that has brought the country to the edge of or — according to some experts — fully into a constitutional crisis.

Over the decades, a president’s first 100 days have become something of an unofficial mile marker for assessing a new administration’s progress. Has it passed any major legislation? Has the momentum from the campaign carried over into the new term? What does the public think of the job he’s done so far?

Trump has transformed the country so dramatically since January 20 that his 100th day presents an opportunity to check in not just on how his administration is faring, but on how America — as a nation — is doing.

Reshaping the government

Trump campaigned for a second term on a promise to dramatically reshape the federal government. He pledged to cut waste, roll back what he saw as the left wing “woke” agenda and conquer the “Deep State” of federal workers bent on undermining his administration.

One of the most important tools Trump has used in pursuit of that goal is executive orders. All modern presidents start their terms by issuing a flurry of orders to reverse policies of their predecessors and lay the groundwork for their administrations. But Trump has done it at a pace that’s never been seen before. In his first 100 days, he has signed 142 orders that have done everything from create the legal foundation for his deportation operation to declaring a national energy emergency to renaming the Gulf of Mexico.

Many of his early orders, like his attempt to revoke birthright citizenship, have tried to do things that go beyond the established scope of presidential power. As a result, his administration has faced a cascade of lawsuits and more than 100 rulings that have blocked his orders from going into effect, at least temporarily.

On his first day in office, Trump signed an order creating the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by the world’s richest man, Elon Musk. DOGE quickly went to work on a sweeping overhaul of the federal government with the goal of eliminating $2 trillion in federal spending. Musk and his team effectively shut down existing agencies like USAID and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau while moving to drastically reduce the size of the federal workforce — either through a series of voluntary buyouts or direct firings.

On its website, DOGE claims to have saved the government $160 billion, but its itemized list of cuts adds up to less than half of that total and there have been a number of reports that have found errors in DOGE’s data. While the actual savings — or potential costs — of Musk’s cuts are unclear, he has undoubtedly altered the size of the federal government and its role at home and abroad.

Economic upheaval

Voters’ discontent over the economy, specifically stubbornly persistent inflation, under Democratic leadership likely fueled Trump’s victory in November more than any other issue.

Throughout the campaign, Trump insisted that the best way to revive the U.S. economy and bring prices down was through a new regime of tariffs on foreign imports — even though experts almost universally agree that tariffs inevitably drive prices up. Earlier this month, he unveiled a sweeping set of tariffs on nearly every country in the world, with especially high rates applied to China.

That announcement sent the stock market into a nose dive. The universal tariffs were later put on pause, helping the market recover some of what it had lost. But Trump has continued to ratchet up tariff rates on China, all the way to 145% as of Monday. Though the administration says it is currently negotiating new trade deals that could eventually allow tariffs to be lifted, the lack of any real certainty about what happens next and the prospects of a lengthy trade war between the world’s two biggest economies has left investors wary.

The full effect of Trump’s tariffs has not been seen in prices in the U.S. as of yet, but experts’ warnings about a “supply shock” that could be around the corner have soured the general public’s view of where the economy is heading — and how Trump is handling it.

Trump and his allies have conceded that the country may have to endure some “short term pain” because of the tariffs, but the president is steadfast in his belief that America will ultimately be better off in the long run. Most Americans aren’t convinced. A majority now expect the U.S. to enter a recession and concerns about unpredictability after weeks of economic whiplash have increased.

Immigration crackdown

Trump’s signature issue since he launched his first successful presidential campaign nearly 10 years ago has been immigration. During his first term, he implemented a series of deeply controversial policies, including a de facto Muslim ban and family separation, as part of his aggressive strategy to combat illegal immigration.

He has gone even further in the early stages of his second term. Using a centuries-old law designed to protect the U.S. from foreign threats during wartime, Trump’s administration has defied the longstanding due process requirements for deportations to send hundreds of alleged gang members to a notoriously brutal prison in El Salvador. It has also failed to bring one man back despite being ordered to do so by the Supreme Court.

There have also been numerous cases of legal immigrants having their visas revoked without warning, including some who have lost their immigration status and been detained by immigration enforcement reportedly because of their political views. Foreign travelers, and even some U.S. citizens, report enduring harsh treatment at the hands of immigration authorities.

These incidents, particularly the case of Salvadorian migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia, have understandably consumed the public conversation around immigration. At the same time, very little attention is being paid to what’s happening at the border itself. Over the past few months, the number of reported illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border have plummeted to unprecedented levels. In the month before Trump took office, Customs and Border Protection reported 96,000 migrant encounters at the southern border. By February, that figure had dropped to under 12,000 and remained there through March. Last month, New York Times reporters who had traveled to a once-bustling border town put it simply: “The migrants are gone.”

Public support dropping

Trump has repeatedly asserted that he has a broad mandate from the public to carry out his policies and overhaul how the government works. But public polling has never backed that claim. He did secure the Electoral College by a comfortable margin while winning the popular vote in 2024, but Americans were basically split down the middle in whether they viewed him favorably or unfavorably when he was sworn in earlier this year.

Those numbers have only gotten worse for him over time. Recent polls show that strong majorities of Americans oppose many of his signature policies, particularly when it comes to the economy and how he has dismantled parts of the federal government. He now holds the lowest approval rating of any modern president after their first 100 days, and 55% of Americans view him unfavorably, compared to 45% who view him favorably.

The global Trump effect

Trump’s first 100 days haven’t just changed dynamics here in the U.S. The world’s relationship with America is also wildly different than it was just a few months ago. Between the economic upheaval caused by his tariffs, his adversarial approach to longstanding allies and his stated desire to seize places like Greenland and Canada, Trump has caused international opinions of the U.S. to dip considerably. Foreign travel into America has also dropped substantially over the past few months, to levels that pose a real risk to the U.S. tourism industry.

Anti-Trump sentiment abroad is also causing political upheaval within other countries. Frustration with Trump’s tariffs in Australia has turned what looked to be a rout by the country’s center-right party in their impending election into essentially a tossup.

The most dramatic shift has happened in Canada, the nation that Trump has persistently insisted should become part of the United States. Just a few months ago, Canada’s Liberal Party under then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appeared to be headed for an absolute thumping at the hands of their conservative opposition. But the dissatisfaction with Trump and the view that the Conservative Party wouldn’t stand up to him caused Canadian sentiment to flip entirely in just a few short weeks, helping the Liberals cruise to a comfortable win in Monday’s election.

Doug Emhoff among those fired from Holocaust Museum board by Trump

Gregory Svirnovskiy
Tue, April 29, 2025 
POLITICO




The White House has fired several of former President Joe Biden’s appointees to the board overseeing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum — including former second gentleman Doug Emhoff — and is actively interviewing new candidates, an administration official, granted anonymity to discuss personnel changes, told POLITICO on Tuesday.

"Today, I was informed of my removal from the United States Holocaust Memorial Council,” Emhoff said in a statement. “Let me be clear: Holocaust remembrance and education should never be politicized. To turn one of the worst atrocities in history into a wedge issue is dangerous — and it dishonors the memory of six million Jews murdered by Nazis that this museum was created to preserve.”

The New York Times first reported the list of officials removed, includes Emhoff; former Biden White House officials Ron Klain, Susan Rice and Anthony Bernal; and former DNC Chair Tom Perez.

The board consists of more than 50 presidentially appointed members, who serve for a five-year term, as well as several members from the House, Senate and three federal agencies. The museum is partially funded by the federal government.

With Biden in the White House, Emhoff, the husband of former Vice President Kamala Harris, became the first Jewish person ever to be married to a president or vice president. He emerged as a key voice for the administration on Israel, and to the Jewish community. Emhoff lamented a rising “antisemitism crisis” on college campuses following the Hamas attacks on Israel in October 2023. And he hosted six Jewish college students — all with grandparents who survived the Holocaust — at the White House on Holocaust Remembrance Day in 2024.

As the 2024 presidential campaign geared up, Emhoff tore into then-candidate Trump for saying Jews voting for Democrats “hate Israel.”

More recently, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, the law firm where Emhoff is a partner, reached a deal with the Trump administration to avoid White House sanctions. Emhoff criticized the maneuver, CNN reported.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the Holocaust Museum did not address the board members being released, only saying ”we look forward to continuing to advance our vitally important mission as we work with the Trump Administration.”

"No divisive political decision will ever shake my commitment to Holocaust remembrance and education or to combating hate and antisemitism,” Emhoff said in his statement. “I will continue to speak out, to educate, and to fight hate in all its forms — because silence is never an option."
REVANCHIST COURT

Brazil's Supreme Court deals blow to Amazon 'Soy Moratorium'



FILE PHOTO: Soybean harvest on a farm in Maringa


By Ana Mano and Ricardo Brito
Tue, April 29, 2025 

SAO PAULO (Reuters) -Brazil's Supreme Court will allow the country's biggest farming state to withdraw tax incentives from signatories of the so-called "Soy Moratorium," a voluntary ban by grain traders on soybean purchases from Amazon areas deforested after 2008, in a setback for the conservation movement.

Conservationists have praised the 2006 Soy Moratorium initiative for slowing damage to the world's largest rainforest. But the agreement is under growing pressure from farmers' lobbies interested in expanding plantings to meet rising demand for soy from Brazil, the leading producer globally.

Separately on Tuesday, Brazil's Mato Grosso farmers lobby Aprosoja-MT filed a fresh lawsuit against global grain companies and their Brazilian lobbies over the rules of the moratorium, according to a copy of the complaint filed with the court and seen by Reuters.

They want the court to force the defendants to cease what they called "the illegal conduct that has been practiced within the scope of the Soy Moratorium." Farmers are seeking to persuade the judge to make the defendants pay compensation for the losses this agreement allegedly imposed on Brazilian soybean farmers.

Aprosoja-MT is suing the Brazilian units of ADM, Bunge, Cargill, Louis Dreyfus Company and COFCO and lobbies for grain exporters, such as Abiove and Anec.

Louis Dreyfus Company referred Reuters to Abiove for comment. Cargill and Abiove declined to comment on the lawsuit. Anec and the other firms did not immediately reply to requests for comment.

Mato Grosso state, which supplies almost a third of Brazil's soybeans, passed a law last year pulling tax advantages for those joining the Soy Moratorium.

The Supreme Court had provisionally suspended enforcement of the law pending a ruling on its compliance with the constitution.

In the decision handed down on Monday following arguments from Mato Grosso, Justice Flavio Dino acknowledged the moratorium as an important conservation tool; however, he wrote it cannot be used to constrain the actions of the state.

The state "may base its tax incentive policy on criteria that are different from those of a private agreement, as long as it is in compliance with national legislation," Dino wrote.

"It seems reasonable to me that [Mato Grosso] state should not be obliged to grant tax incentives or public land [use] to companies failing to comply with laws that took effect after the signing of the Soy Moratorium," he added.

The ruling must now be confirmed by a panel of Supreme Court justices before it can be enforced from January 1, 2026, the decision said.

Abiove, which represents soybean traders, said last week before a Senate committee that the case gave the soy industry a chance to improve the moratorium.

On the Supreme Court's decision itself, Abiove vowed to open talks with the Mato Grosso government to discuss the application of the new law if the panel confirms the latest ruling on the matter. Abiove praised the fact Justice Dino gave time in his decision for private and public agents to have talks.

Abiove added Dino's decision "makes it clear" that all previous legal acts and acquired rights "are guaranteed," meaning the incentives already granted to the trading companies cannot be withdrawn, according to the statement.

The current moratorium agreement bars soy purchases from a whole farm if it includes areas deforested since 2008, and one potential change could allow more flexibility by drawing a distinction between individual soy fields.

Farmers and traders, however, have yet to reach a compromise.

(Reporting by Ana Mano in São Paulo and Ricardo Brito in Brasília; Additional reporting by Oliver Griffin in São PauloEditing by Joe Bavier and Aurora Ellis)

 Port of L.A. executive director says retailers will soon have only about 7 weeks of full inventories left amid U.S.-China trade war

  • The U.S.-China trade war fallout has begun. The Port of Los Angeles anticipates plummeting cargo traffic until a deal on tariffs is reached, but the Trump administration has not indicated whether negotiations are happening. Time is running out, a JPMorgan chief market strategist said.

The U.S.-China trade war has begun, so say goodbye to the goods. The Port of Los Angeles anticipates a drop-off in imports next week compared to a year ago, totaling more than a third of typical incoming cargo traffic.

“It’s a precipitous drop in volume, with a number of major American retailers stopping all shipments from China based on the tariffs,” Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of L.A., said on CNBC Tuesday morning.

While President Donald Trump pressed pause on his sweeping tariff regimen and placed a 10% blanket tax on other countries, he taxed China more. He placed a 145% tariff on China, which retaliated with a 120% duty on American goods. No trade deal has been made, and it is unclear whether there are negotiations happening. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has put the onus on China to come to the table and ink a deal. Still, just under half of the port’s business emanates from China, Seroka explained. So things could be bleak until then.

“What we’re going to see next is retailers have about five to seven weeks of full inventories left, and then the choices will lessen,” Seroka told CNBC. That doesn’t mean shelves will be empty, but in Seroka’s hypothetical, it could mean if you’re out shopping for a blue shirt, you may see 11 purple ones—but only one blue that isn’t your size and is costlier.

“Nobody wins,” he said. “China is America’s factory.” He later said: “The pain is felt on both sides of the Pacific.”

Bessent has repeatedly called the tariffs on China unsustainable because the country sells much more to the U.S. than the other way around. He appears to believe China wants a de-escalation because of the exemptions to tariffs it has introduced, but he has still threatened an escalation ladder if that isn’t the case. Nonetheless, the Trump administration, according to a recent LPL Financial note, has adopted a softer tone on China. Less than a week ago, the president floated the notion that tariffs on Chinese goods would be reduced substantially.

“We’ll see what that means, but the conciliatory tone was enough to add fuel to the market recovery,” according to LPL. So far, the three major indexes are relatively flat in early afternoon trading.

Earlier Tuesday, Gabriela Santos, JPMorgan Asset Management chief market strategist for the Americas, told CNBC: “Time is running out to see a lessening of the tariffs on China.” Everyone knows the tariffs are unsustainable, she said, but markets need to see them actually drop.

“We’re not talking about higher prices and companies figuring out ways to pass that on,” Santos said. “We’re talking about actual disruption to the supply chain.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com