Editor's Note: One hundred days into his second term, Donald Trump's storm-like executive orders and "creative" policy imagination have not only caused fluctuations in the global financial markets but also led to a rapid decline in his approval ratings among American citizens. A recent poll conducted jointly by ABC News, The Washington Post, and Ipsos on April 27 showed that Trump's approval rating for the first 100 days of his presidency was 39%, setting a record for the lowest approval rating among U.S. presidents in the past 80 years.
In response to the chaos and gains/losses of Trump's policies over the past 100 days, Observer Network interviewed Professor Jin Canrong from the School of International Relations at Renmin University of China, asking him to analyze Trump's governance logic in its second version from a professional perspective and look ahead to future development.
Interviewer/Observer Network Tang Xiaofu:
Observation Network: Mr. Trump has been in office for 100 days. Could you summarize the significant characteristics of his governance during this period? What are the notable differences between his second term and the first?
Jin Canrong: Overall, compared with his first term, Trump’s second term enjoys a more solid power base and clearer goals; this contrasts sharply with the situation during his first term when he lacked a stable foundation and had no clear direction. Thanks to the consolidation of his power base, he no longer needs to consider the interests of various factions when appointing officials. Instead, he prioritizes loyal personnel, boldly employing several individuals who were considered "unqualified" or even "eccentric" according to traditional American political experience, including Department of Homeland Security Secretary Christy Nom and Defense Secretary Pete Hedges. If we summarize his selection criteria, loyalty is the primary standard.
Therefore, in his first 100 days in office, whether in domestic or foreign affairs, he could quickly formulate goals based on his own ideas and put them into practice. Currently, due to the high internal unity within the team and consistent policy objectives, the impact of the series of measures implemented within the first 100 days far exceeds that of the same period in his first term. It can be said that it is precisely because of this execution ability that Trump's policies in the first 100 days of his second term have caused chaos domestically and confusion internationally.
Trump announces signing of the "Reciprocal Tariff" executive order
Observation Network: Specifically speaking, Trump has also been promoting the "Government Efficiency Department" (DOGE). According to The New York Times tracking data, as of April 14, 2025, a total of approximately 275,000 employees have been announced to be laid off during the second term, of which about 55,000 have confirmed their departure, approximately 76,000 have reduced through early retirement and buyouts, and another 145,000 layoffs are pending execution, accounting for 12% of the 2.4 million civilian employees in the federal government, including departments such as USAID. From your perspective, how great an impact will this large-scale layoff have on the U.S. federal government? Has Trump achieved control over the deep state through this strategy?
Jin Canrong: Judging from the scale of layoffs over these three months, the intensity cannot be called insignificant. Compared with previous administrations, the scale of this round of layoffs is astonishing, accounting for 12% of the total number of federal employees. This attempt to drastically reduce the size of the federal government and cut expenses undoubtedly has a major impact on the deep state, composed of "technocrats, capital, and old politicians," as well as Trump's domestic opponents. However, in my opinion, the current scale of layoffs has not yet reached a level that causes serious damage to this complex structure.
At the same time, he has another strategic intention behind the large-scale layoffs, which is to reduce government intervention in the economy. As a representative of the Republican right wing, he has consistently opposed administrative intervention, striving to implement the concept of "small government, big market." So far, the initial results of his first 100-day policies have already shown some effectiveness in this direction. However, this also brings hidden concerns—low morale within the government, regulatory vacuums leading to frequent accidents, and a noticeable decline in administrative efficiency.
In summary, the result of cutting 12% of federal employees within three months is undoubtedly a personal political victory for Trump, as it weakens part of the "deep state" and reduces government interference in the market.
Observation Network: On the very first day of his inauguration, Trump signed an executive order titled "Defending Women Against Gender Ideological Extremism," prohibiting federal departments from funding gender confirmation medical care and banning the inclusion of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) clauses in government contracts. Subsequently, on February 5, he signed an order prohibiting transgender athletes from participating in women's sports events and officially targeting university funding in the U.S. How much impact have these anti-DEI movements had on the U.S. domestically? Have they encountered significant resistance?
Jin Canrong: It is generally believed that Trump set four main goals in domestic affairs: First, revitalizing manufacturing; Second, reducing the size of the federal government while weakening the "deep state" to the greatest extent possible; Third, advancing conservative agendas, restoring traditional values, and revising the liberal leftist trends that emerged after the Cold War; Fourth, implementing anti-immigration policies. These goals were clearly stated domestic policies during his campaign.
Trump harbors particular resentment toward leftist values that have developed since the end of the Cold War, believing they have disrupted the unity of American society. Therefore, he views DEI policies, which focus on ethnicity and gender and were vigorously promoted by the previous Democratic administration, as the main target of his attack. He even directly points out that these policies have led to unqualified personnel entering the Federal Aviation Administration, resulting in frequent air disasters recently.
Before his election, Trump believed that God only created two genders—male and female—and that all other so-called genders are false. After taking office, he immediately signed multiple executive orders to eliminate "leftist ideologies" in educational institutions, with the first batch of orders revoking all projects related to transgender education; subsequently, he signed an executive order prohibiting transgender people from serving openly in the military. Based on these measures and his repeated statements, it is clear that he takes the issue of anti-DEI very seriously and is firmly pushing forward with relevant plans.
Trump also believes that universities that previously promoted DEI policies have problems and pressures them to correct their DEI policies. In response, the liberal forces on campus publicly resist his right-wing policies, further intensifying the conflict. Among the most representative cases, the government announced a freeze on approximately $2.3 billion in long-term grants and $60 million in contracts provided to Harvard University and threatened to revoke the university's tax-exempt status; Harvard, in turn, joined hands with other universities to strongly oppose and support this move.
In general, this dispute with universities and left-wing values carries strong symbolic significance. The matter of "restoring traditional values" resonates well with Trump's supporters, but it undoubtedly impacts certain minority sexual orientation groups and some ethnic minorities that were once favored, also provoking strong opposition from liberals and Democrats. As to the ultimate outcome of this struggle, it remains to be seen.
Harvard University - Stock Image
Observation Network: On the immigration issue, Trump not only accelerated the crackdown on undocumented immigrants but also opened new paths for wealthy immigrants to enter the U.S., namely the $5 million "golden card." From your perspective, can Trump solve what he considers the problem of illegal immigration?
Jin Canrong: I believe that Trump places more emphasis on the immigration issue than any previous U.S. president. During both terms of his presidency, he has maintained a consistent stance on immigration issues, being very resolute. In fact, his determination regarding immigration issues surpasses his commitment to value-related issues.
For a long time, he has expressed deep concern about the declining proportion of whites in American society: In 1776, when America declared independence, whites accounted for more than 80% of the colonial population; by the 1940 U.S. census, the white population reached a historical peak of 89.8%; according to the 2023 annual estimate by the U.S. Census Bureau, non-Hispanic whites account for about 58.4%, just a step away from falling below half.
Trump attributes this demographic change mainly to immigration, particularly illegal immigration from South America, believing that they bring many impacts to social security, public services, and cultural identity. In terms of specific measures, he continues the approach of obstructing new immigrants from entering, as seen in the previous term. Although Trump did not mention building walls again after taking office, his focus has shifted to strengthening enforcement against illegal immigrants. He has significantly tightened border controls at the enforcement level, conducting large-scale deportations of illegal immigrants with criminal records and even some without criminal records, with the number of deportations reaching tens of thousands so far.
Meanwhile, he also introduced the "golden card" investment immigration policy, aiming to sell high-end immigrant visas to individuals who have accumulated wealth to a certain degree and possess strong comprehensive competitive capabilities, thereby financially addressing the budget deficit. However, from the current situation, the application numbers for the golden card are extremely low.
It can be concluded that Trump, out of fiscal considerations, warmly welcomes wealthy immigrants to the U.S., while out of concerns for social cohesion and racial structure, he firmly cracks down on poor illegal immigrants from South America.
The issue of illegal immigration has become one of the core areas of contention between the two parties: some state governments under Democratic control refuse to cooperate with federal deportation orders, and there are even videos showing the FBI raiding a state courthouse and arresting judges resisting federal immigration policies, with tensions escalating further. Since Trump currently needs to balance tariff negotiations and federal layoffs among other matters, he has not yet concentrated all resources on combating illegal immigration; once other agendas reach a阶段性 conclusion, he will surely concentrate more law enforcement resources, and the conflict with Democratic-led state governments will become more prominent.
Looking back at history, there is an interesting fact worth noting: the number of illegal immigrants deported during Obama's first and second terms exceeded the number deported during Trump's first term. However, given the more solid power base of the current Trump administration compared to the first term, the policy enforcement strength may be slightly greater than in the first term.
It can be expected that during his four-year term, despite continuous obstacles set by federal judges and state governments, Trump will continue to firmly advance his anti-illegal immigration plan. As he shifts his policy focus from a broad-based, multi-front approach to concentrating on a few key issues, the actual effects of this round of immigration deportation actions are expected to exceed those of the first term.
Observation Network: The most eye-catching aspect in the economic field is his tariff policy. The U.S. tariff war against China and the world is undoubtedly its biggest feature. Recently, many Americans mentioned that Trump misjudged China's reaction at the beginning of the tariff war. Do you think he failed to anticipate China's tough response? Why did he misjudge? Is it related to the 2018 tariff war?
Jin Canrong: I believe that under the increasingly severe fiscal pressure, launching a tariff war against China has almost become a necessary choice for the Trump administration. The U.S. national debt is soon expected to reach $37 trillion, with extremely high interest costs. It is estimated that the Trump administration's gross interest expenditure alone in the current fiscal year will exceed $1.2 trillion. At the same time, Trump promised to promote large-scale tax cuts, which will lead to a reduction in federal revenue. If federal spending cannot be rapidly reduced in the short term, the fiscal deficit this year may approach or even exceed $2 trillion, close to 7% of GDP.
Therefore, Trump hoped to address these issues through cost-cutting and increasing revenue. On one hand, he invited Elon Musk and a group of big data experts to assess and significantly reduce federal expenditures, with the goal of cutting approximately $1 trillion in spending. On the other hand, he focused his attention on tariffs. The Trump team believed that tariffs are essentially "taxing foreigners," with relatively smaller political resistance, and hoped to make up for the fiscal deficit through tariff collection.
However, the Trump team clearly underestimated the resistance to tariffs and the cost of collecting them.
Firstly, the burden of tariffs is not automatically borne by overseas exporters but is ultimately passed on to domestic consumers by U.S. importers. This misjudgment stems from the influence of numerous anti-China voices around the decision-making level, causing them to mistakenly believe that China would face severe difficulties after losing the U.S. market. Therefore, when China withstood the tariff pressure and implemented equivalent countermeasures, the U.S. government immediately became extremely passive.
Secondly, they also overestimated the fragility of the Chinese economy, underestimated the Chinese government's crisis prevention capability and the resistance will of the people, and underestimated the intensity of China's countermeasures. This misjudgment stems from the presence of numerous anti-China elements around the U.S. decision-making level who genuinely believe that the Chinese economy is not doing well and genuinely think that if China loses the U.S. market, China will encounter major problems. Therefore, they believed that raising the tariff stick would scare China. When the U.S. government found that China resisted the tariff stick and retaliated equally, it became very passive.
Meanwhile, China's firm countermeasures not only left the U.S. in a dilemma but also produced a demonstration effect on third parties: although many countries in the international community took a compromising stance in attitude and showed a low profile to the U.S., they actually did not make concessions in substantive policies. A typical example is that Japan has not signed any formal agreements with the U.S. so far and hopes to continue observing the situation of the Sino-U.S. tariff war.
Japan did not immediately compromise
The negative impacts of the tariff war gradually became apparent—U.S. stock markets, foreign exchanges, and bond markets fluctuated more; politically, former Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Biden of the Democratic Party publicly criticized; twelve Democratic state governments, including California and New York, sued the president on the grounds that the constitutional authority to levy tariffs belongs to Congress.
This lawsuit is not without basis, as the Trump administration this time imposed tariffs on various countries by declaring a "national emergency" and issuing executive orders. However, many Democrats believe that it is not an emergency situation now and deny the legality of Trump's modification of tariffs. This series of changes has exacerbated the economic and political pressures within the United States, leaving the Trump administration in a more awkward position.
Looking back at the first round of the U.S.-China tariff war in 2018, China's response strategy at that time differed from now: at the beginning of Trump's unilateral initiation of the trade war, China actively dispatched senior officials for communication and once reached a compromise solution in a certain sense. This experience evidently had some impact on Trump and his advisory team.
Observation Network: From your perspective, was Trump originally planning to push forward the so-called "Mar-a-Lago Agreement" on the basis of the tariff war, using the tariff war to force the world to help the U.S. resolve its debt?
Jin Canrong: Currently, almost all scholars studying the U.S.-China tariff war mention the so-called "Mar-a-Lago Agreement" proposed by Stephen Miller. The content of this agreement is quite absurd: on one hand, it assumes that all countries will voluntarily pay tariffs and increase imports of American goods; on the other hand, it even demands that countries purchase U.S. century-long zero-interest bonds and then borrow funds with attached interest from the U.S. side, essentially forcing other countries to provide free blood transfusions to the U.S. to help resolve its debt crisis and indirectly prompt the depreciation of the dollar.
Due to its logical similarity to the Plaza Accord in 1985, people jokingly refer to it as the "second Plaza Accord," but this is entirely a one-sided wishful thinking, contradictory to common sense. Given the current situation, although we cannot rule out the possibility that Miller and others influenced Trump to a certain extent, in the process of forming U.S.-China trade and economic policies, figures like Peter Navarro and Robert Bessen are also highly influential. Therefore, Trump's tariffs and trade measures are not entirely based on rumors of the "Mar-a-Lago Agreement"—his policies may reflect some shadows of this document, but they do not adopt it wholesale.
Summary of the so-called "Mar-a-Lago Agreement" by foreign media
Observation Network: Just before Easter, Putin suddenly announced a 30-hour ceasefire, which caught Ukraine off guard. Regarding U.S.-Ukraine relations, Trump not only forced Ukraine to sign the "Memorandum on the U.S.-Ukraine Mineral Resources Agreement" but also rumors surfaced that Trump intended to let Ukraine make significant territorial concessions, including recognizing Crimea as part of Russia and transferring a large amount of territory to Russia. From your perspective, does Trump already regard Ukraine as a defeated country? Do you agree with the view that "Putin successfully manipulated Trump"?
Jin Canrong: Currently, many international public opinions supporting Ukraine criticize Trump's stance on the Russia-Ukraine conflict for being heavily biased toward Putin and Russia, accusing Trump of being almost completely aligned with Putin's political stance: advocating the direct incorporation of eastern Ukraine and Crimea into Russia and placing the rest of the territories under permanent political neutrality, prohibiting membership in NATO. Meanwhile, he imposes harsh economic conditions on Ukraine, attempting to control its mineral resources and ports, and demanding approximately $500 billion, treating Ukraine almost as a defeated country. Moreover, Trump even proposed inviting Russia to rejoin the G7—this is essentially equivalent to lifting sanctions on Russia.
Based on existing information, due to the obvious tilt of Trump's solutions to the Russia-Ukraine conflict toward Russia, these opinions have been firmly rejected by Kiev and have sparked strong criticism from European countries and within the U.S.
Currently, although the U.S. and Ukraine have signed the "Memorandum on the U.S.-Ukraine Mineral Resources Agreement," the related treaty has yet to be approved, and Ukraine adopts a delaying strategy of neither explicitly accepting nor directly rejecting, leading to a deadlock in negotiations. Meanwhile, Trump has repeatedly threatened to withdraw from mediating the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
From Trump's perspective, the U.S. position in the Russia-Ukraine war is somewhat awkward. The fundamental starting point of Trump's policy is to shift the U.S. strategic focus from Europe to the Asia-Pacific region after resolving the war, to counter China and other challenges and to court Russia. This conception reflects Trump's extremely serious adjustment in foreign strategy direction, but if these policies cannot be implemented from the beginning, they will inevitably become a major diplomatic failure.
On the other hand, Putin has demonstrated great intelligence in responding to Trump, skillfully seizing opportunities. Facing the most pro-Russian U.S. president in modern history, Putin will certainly utilize Trump's stance to achieve his own policy goals—first, leveraging Trump's pressure on Ukraine to resolve the Russia-Ukraine conflict in the most advantageous way for Russia.
I don't think Putin will cooperate with Trump's anticipated "Russia-United States against China" strategy, as this does not align with Russia's maximized interests. Currently, Putin's top priority is to maximize Russian interests in the Ukraine issue, and he will use Trump's policies to achieve this goal, never falling into Trump's trap of maximizing U.S. interests through Russia.
Observation Network: Trump's changing viewpoints are undoubtedly influencing transatlantic relations. We observe that although the U.S. plans to increase its defense budget to $1 trillion in the next fiscal year, it is attempting to reduce its security commitments in Europe and urging NATO allies to raise military spending to 5% of GDP. From your perspective, how does the Trump administration view the relationship between NATO and the U.S.? Does Trump want the U.S. to return from being a "world police" to a "balancer"? What impact will this have on the Middle East, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region?
Jin Canrong: I believe that Trump does not intend to abandon the transatlantic alliance or completely abandon Europe. He aims to push Europe to achieve greater autonomy in strategy and military defense, making European allies bear more security responsibilities, thus allowing the U.S. to concentrate its efforts on countering China.
After taking office, he launched a tariff war against China, only to find that China not only remained resolute but also possessed tremendous economic resilience. Consequently, he began to emphasize military deterrence, creating a seemingly contradictory policy combination: on one hand, planning to reduce government spending domestically through tax cuts; on the other hand, planning to increase military spending to around $1 trillion. U.S. Defense Secretary Hedges was proud of this, considering himself the first defense secretary to raise the defense budget to the trillion-dollar level.
My understanding is that Trump's overall goal remains to maintain global hegemony for the U.S., but his overall strategy has shifted from "full-scale offensive" to "focused offensive." The U.S. intends to concentrate limited forces on relatively critical regions. Areas surrounding China are self-evident, and the Middle East, due to the influence of its ally Israel, is another area where the U.S. cannot easily withdraw from.
In the European direction, the U.S. indeed hopes to transfer the defense responsibility, especially the defense burden in the currently war-torn Eastern Europe, to its European allies and completely ease U.S.-Russia relations. Trump indeed hopes to strengthen European military power so that European allies bear more responsibilities, enabling the U.S. to completely extricate itself from the European war quagmire.
To avoid attacks from the Houthi armed group, an F-18 fighter jet from the USS Truman crashed into the sea
Therefore, despite friction in U.S.-European relations, Trump has not truly abandoned the transatlantic alliance but ensures U.S. advantages in countering China in the Asia-Pacific region by pressuring allies to assume more military and defense responsibilities.
Observation Network: After Trump won the election, invading Mexico to set up isolation zones, annexing Canada, reclaiming the Panama Canal, buying or forcibly seizing Greenland seemed to become options for Trump. From your perspective, how far will Trump go on these issues? Can the three 19th-century American imperialist ideologies of "isolationism, Manifest Destiny, and the Monroe Doctrine" provide a reference for us to understand Trump's current foreign policies?
Jin Canrong: Over the past 100 days, Trump has made many unconventional moves in domestic and foreign affairs. I believe we can understand his thinking from two logical dimensions: 1. Defeating his political opponents; 2. Restricting China's development.
What Trump calls the "deep state"—what we call the establishment—has repeatedly obstructed policy implementation during his first term and unleashed a frenzied political retaliation against him and his family after his tenure. If Trump cannot weaken or defeat the establishment during his term, the second term will also be fruitless, and he might even face new and more thorough political purges after stepping down.
From his personal and family perspective, the real danger lies within the establishment. To this end, he promotes government reform, reduces the size of the government, uses administrative means to strike at the foundation of the establishment, and takes hardline measures in the ideological domain to consolidate his base.
On the other hand, his goal is to restrict China's development. Although Trump may not necessarily want to go to war with China, he is firmly determined to limit China's growth. Therefore, he has taken a series of seemingly unexpected actions.
1. Expanding North American Strategic Outposts: Trump's actions of proposing to annex Canada into the U.S., occupying Greenland, and reclaiming the Panama Canal are all aimed at doubling his North American base, gaining strategic advantages through enhancing local strength to compete with China.
2. Courting Russia: Trump actively flatters Putin and pushes for a U.S.-Russia alliance to resolve the Russia-Ukraine conflict. These actions are motivated by similar considerations. In Trump's mind, among all the countries globally, only the U.S., China, and Russia truly possess strategic autonomy. As long as he can pull Russia over, forming a U.S.-Russia alliance, it would create a strategic advantage against China.
3. "Reorganizing" Traditional Allies: Trump is currently "reorganizing" traditional allies such as Europe, Japan, and South Korea, reshaping the combat effectiveness of the allied forces. Trump hopes that through these "reorganizations," they will stand on the U.S. side when a conflict between China and the U.S. breaks out and output combat power at critical moments.
In essence, Trump believes that as long as China's development is curbed, the U.S.'s greatest national threat is eliminated. From this perspective, the strategic intent of these arrangements goes beyond a simple return to traditional Monroe Doctrine and does not represent his desire to fully control Latin America (based on publicly available information, Trump seems to hold no particular goodwill toward Latin American countries). Instead, it focuses more on expanding spheres of influence, consolidating strategic alliances, and restructuring the alliance system to comprehensively curb China's rise and eliminate threats to the U.S.
Observation Network: Finally, please summarize what Trump has done over the past 100 days. After encountering a series of setbacks, do you think he will take action in any areas?
Jin Canrong: Recently, many domestic U.S. public opinions have mocked Trump, saying that his 100 days of governance, though full of excitement and fanfare, have yielded few substantial results. As a neutral observer, we might evaluate it this way: Trump set policy goals that were overly ambitious in these 100 days, each with extremely high difficulty levels. From a realistic standpoint, it is difficult to expect significant achievements in such a short time frame.
Although some critics like CNN have valid points, it seems premature to conclude that Trump will achieve nothing after just 100 days in office. If Trump can proceed step by step and advance each agenda in order, preliminary results might be seen in six months.
If Trump wants to achieve real results, he must decisively abandon some goals and concentrate limited resources on a few key issues, rather than trying to "defeat the master with a barrage of blows" by attacking from all fronts. If he can focus his limited energy on a few goals, perhaps he really could accomplish something.
This article is an exclusive article of Observer Network, and the content purely represents the author's personal views, which do not necessarily reflect the platform's views. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited; otherwise, legal liability will be pursued. Follow Observer Network's official WeChat account guanchacn for daily interesting articles.
Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7498948287353995830/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and welcome your feedback by clicking the "like/dislike" buttons below.