One hundred days have passed since the beginning of Donald Trump’s second presidential term – a sufficient period to not only assess the rhythm and content of the new administration’s actions, but also to record the scale of its influence on the entire international system. The first three months of the administration were marked by a relaunch of the “America First” policy, as well as radical measures: territorial ambitions, a massive revision of trade agreements, pressure on partners, the dismantling of multilateral mechanisms, diplomatic distancing, increased protectionism and a customs war with almost the entire world. At the same time, the attempt to impose one-sided rules of the game is accompanied by undisguised pressure in matters of security, energy and regional stability. One hundred days is just the beginning, but it is at this stage that it becomes clear that Trump’s second term as president is shaping a new foreign policy gravity that is affecting the world faster than even the closest allies have had time to adapt.
All-time low: Donald Trump’s approval rating
Even before the end of the first hundred days of Donald Trump’s second presidential term, his level of support in American society has fallen to a historic low. As of April 27, 2025, according to a poll conducted by SSRS on behalf of CNN, the approval rating for Trump’s actions is 41%. This rate is the lowest of any US president-elect after his first 100 days in office since the administration of Dwight Eisenhower (1953–1961). This is both an important political indicator and an indicator of irritation, fatigue and a crisis of confidence.
The results of the rating indicate that the level of approval of Trump’s decisions has decreased by four percentage points compared to March and by seven – compared to the end of February 2025. Even more revealing are the divisions within the electoral base: only 22% of respondents said they “strongly approve” of his actions as president, a new all-time low for this indicator. Instead, 45% of respondents “strongly disapprove” of the current president’s actions, and this group has not decreased since January.
It should be noted that a parallel survey by the Reuters/Ipsos agency confirms these trends. The balance between approval and disapproval of the president’s actions is now -16 percentage points. For comparison: in 2017, after the first 100 days of Trump’s first presidential term, this indicator was -11 points. And Joe Biden has +17 points after the first 100 days. This means not just a drop in trust, but a significant disconnect between the support base and the national electorate.
The decrease in Trump’s rating is also accompanied by public consequences: materials about conflicts between the White House and individual departments appear in the media, among Republicans, which are the first signs of disappointment. Some experts attribute the drop in the rating to a number of actions of the administration, including an aggressive immigration policy, cuts in humanitarian aid, contradictory statements regarding NATO and Ukraine, as well as an approach to the federal budget.
The record low level of support for Donald Trump after the first 100 days of his second term has already led to concrete political steps. On April 28, Michigan Congressman Sri Thanedar submitted seven articles of impeachment to the US House of Representatives. In them, he accuses Trump of a series of serious violations, including illegally cutting funding to government agencies through the administration’s Department of Government Effectiveness (DOGE) without congressional approval. By taking this initiative, Thanedar effectively launched the first formal process against the incumbent president amid a rapid decline in his electoral support.
But even without a detailed analysis of specific decisions, one thing is clear: Donald Trump’s second term began without a “honeymoon” with society. For the first time in the last seven decades, the US president received such weak support already at the start of his mandate. If this dynamic continues, it will create the conditions not only for an internal political crisis, but also for a revision of loyalty even among the Republican electorate.
Trump’s foreign policy priorities
Donald Trump’s second term began with a strong signal: the United States is not going to play the role of global arbiter. Israel, China, restrictions on allies, tone-deaf rhetoric about the UN — all elements of the new foreign policy course are formed around the idea of unilateral benefit. This is a return to isolationism and a flagrant disregard for the commitments America has made for decades.
At the heart of Trump’s foreign policy is his full and unconditional support for Israel’s actions in Gaza, including publicly blocking any UN Security Council resolutions that contain language for a ceasefire or the protection of civilians. The Trump-2 administration not only does not coordinate with NATO partners on this issue, but also openly accuses them of “indecisiveness.” This position led to a significant aggravation of relations with France, Germany and Canada. Britain, despite special relations, has taken a much more restrained position and is trying to distance itself from ultimate support for Israeli actions.
At the same time, in the Chinese direction, the confrontation went beyond the economy. The Trump administration has introduced a new series of restrictions on the export of high-tech components, primarily microcircuits, laser optics, sensitive sensors and navigation equipment. Certain exports now require individual authorization from the US Department of Commerce, even if the end user is not military. In addition, Washington renewed pressure on allies, demanding a final break with Huawei not only in 5G infrastructure, but also in related industries (from “smart” cities to mechanical engineering).
American military presence in the South China Sea is also currently increasing. In March 2025, two US Navy strike groups simultaneously conducted demonstration maneuvers near Taiwan, and in April, another mission again passed through the Taiwan Strait, accompanied by Pentagon claims about the “right of navigation.” Beijing responded with missile exercises in Fujian province and declarations of a “new limit of what is acceptable”. The balance of power in the region is changing rapidly, and now it is not just words.
Along with this, in relation to other regions, Trump is demonstrating a controlled retreat. Africa, Latin America, the Middle East (outside of Israel) actually fell off the priority agenda. Any regional initiatives are curtailed or frozen, new diplomatic positions are not filled, missions are reduced. USAID funding has been cut, and cultural diplomacy has been reduced to a minimum. All this is presented as “rationalization of costs in favor of American infrastructure”, but in practice it is a loss of tools to influence global processes.
At the same time, Trump’s rhetoric is becoming more and more controversial. In Afghanistan, airstrikes on objects related to the activities of the “Islamic State in Khorasan” have been resumed, but without warning and coordination with allies. As a result, a diplomatic conflict arose with Uzbekistan, through whose airspace the US conducted one of the raids. In Syria, the Trump administration has enacted new restrictions on humanitarian cargo, changing logistics so that several international organizations have suspended work in the north of the country.
There is also another issue that should be noted. In March 2025, the United States lost a significant share of the tourist flow — and primarily from Europe. According to official data from the International Trade Administration, the total number of visits to the United States by foreigners decreased by 12% compared to March 2024, and tourist arrivals from Western Europe fell by 17.2%. At the same time, trips from Ireland, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, and Germany were particularly sharply reduced – by more than 20%.
Travel companies directly attribute this to the sharp deterioration in the image of the United States, the growing fear of crossing the border, stricter checks, the increase in the number of denied entry, as well as the aggressive international rhetoric of the Trump administration. In addition, the “America first” policy in foreign trade has also spread to the migration sphere: more and more citizens are faced with humiliating procedures, selection of gadgets at controls, cross-examinations, and delays at airports.
The US no longer looks like an open country, so the reaction of the tourist market is immediate. Foreigners choose Canada, Japan, South Korea, Spain or Australia, rather than a country where you can spend three hours at passport control waiting for social media checks. Washington does not publicly comment on the situation, but the industry predicts that by the summer of 2025, the number of European tourists may decrease by another 10-15%, and the United States will lose billions of dollars in annual tourism revenue, which was considered guaranteed a year ago.
Donald Trump’s migration policy is also indicative, as he announced the deportation of one million migrants by the end of the year, which is twice as many as at any time in the history of the United States (during the Obama administration, the maximum was slightly more than 400,000). But experts question the plan’s feasibility: staffing, funding are lacking, and most detainees have the right to appeal before deportation. In addition, Trump’s representatives do not explain how exactly they count potential deportees.
It should be noted that even during his first presidential term, Donald Trump demonstrated an unusual approach to international politics — through the prism of territorial possession and benefits. His idea to buy Greenland from Denmark in 2019 seemed like an absurd prank or a provocative joke. But already in 2025, within the limits of the second term, this rhetoric returned with new subtexts, elements of resentment and revenge. Trump mentioned Greenland again — this time in connection with the geopolitical confrontation with China and Russia in the Arctic.
He stated that Denmark, which rejected the US in 2019, “does not understand the strategic importance of the region” and that “American interests cannot depend on weak government policies in Copenhagen.” New initiatives appeared in the congress related to the placement of military infrastructure in Greenland without the consent of the local authorities, under the pretext of modernizing the base in Tula. This caused a wave of criticism in Europe, but the Trump administration did not back down, but on the contrary, increased information signals about the “resumption of dialogue with the Danish side” regarding the “mutual benefit agreement”.
Even more unexpected was the tone towards Canada. In March 2025, speaking at a closed briefing with representatives of the energy business, Trump hinted at the need to “review the borders in the north” in connection with, in his opinion, unfair conditions regarding oil and gas fields. His words were quoted by the journalists of Politico and Axios: “We cannot allow that the resources, which according to the logic of geography and economics should belong to the United States, are controlled by other countries that are not even capable of extracting them themselves.”
In response, the Canadian government officially demanded an explanation. The White House press office declined to comment, but the next day, a spokesman for the National Security Council called the president’s words “a metaphor for economic reassessment.” In Canada, it was not taken as a joke: at the end of April, Ottawa passed an additional decision to expand funding for the Northern Command program and strengthen the border in the Yukon region.
Therefore, Trump’s territorial ambitions are not an eccentric episode, but a way to form new forms of political pressure. Greenland, Canada, even Alaska—anything containing natural resources or military logic—is being traded. And while this doesn’t mean literally looking at the cards, in a world that will balance power politics and diplomacy on a daily basis, this style risks turning wordplay into a scenario with consequences.
A separate and extremely important topic is Trump’s relations with our country, and here, too, within the framework of the new economic course, he demonstrates his interest in strategic resources. Donald Trump stated the need to provide the US with access to Ukrainian minerals — primarily lithium, titanium, uranium, and rare earth metals — as compensation for military and financial assistance provided. He believes that American support to Ukraine should not be irreversible, and strategic resources should return to the USA in the form of long-term concessions or mining rights for American companies. Trump presents this approach as “restoring a fair balance”, which in practice means an attempt to turn military support into an economic agreement with a fixed return on assets in the form of a commodity base.
After the return of Donald Trump to the White House, the topic of Ukraine again became part of the public agenda in the United States, but the nature of these statements and actions is significantly different from the policies of the Biden administration. During the first hundred days of Trump’s second term, negotiations with Ukraine have been ongoing at various levels — from direct contacts between the presidents to dialogue between the ministries of defense and foreign affairs. Meetings, calls, exchanges of delegations — all this is present. But the result does not match the scale of the public promises that Trump made at the start of his term.
During the election and in the first weeks of his presidency, he repeatedly stated that he would end Russia’s war against Ukraine within 24 hours. However, a sweaty Trump called it a “joke” and a “figurative statement.” He also insists that “the war in Ukraine is senseless”, “Zelensky should sit down at the negotiating table”, but repeatedly used terms that avoided the direct wording “Russia is the aggressor”, which causes an ambiguous reaction both in the US and in the world. In addition, despite congressional approval of a new aid package for Ukraine, the executive branch delayed implementation: delivery was delayed, and administration statements were often accompanied by caveats about “the need to control every dollar.”
In March 2025, in an interview with the Fox News channel, Trump repeated the thesis about the “non-transparent use of American money” in Ukraine and called for increased oversight of military and humanitarian aid. This coincided with a temporary freeze on some aid, which was later unblocked under pressure from Congress and international partners. Nevertheless, the US contacts with the Ukrainian authorities do not stop, there are numerous negotiations and conversations, which are accompanied by increasing pressure from the US regarding the need for political concessions from Ukraine. However, there is still no progress, and meanwhile the situation at the front continues to deteriorate: the intensity of fighting in Donetsk region and Kharkiv region has increased, while the number of attacks by the Russian Federation on the population and civilian infrastructure has increased.
Therefore, Trump’s rhetoric remains twofold: outwardly – sympathy and promises to end the war, in practice – a reduction in political maneuvering for Ukraine, which plays into the hands of the Russian Federation. America negotiates, but no longer guarantees the outcome, and this is the main change in the strategic approach.
100 days of the Trump economy
During the first 100 days of Donald Trump’s second term, the economic policy of the United States has taken the form of demonstrative one-sidedness: the bet is on corporations, on customs pressure and on reducing social spending. At first glance, such actions have had a tangible effect domestically, with stock indexes rising and the energy and defense sectors posting record profits. But behind this facade are declines, pressures, financial destabilization and growing risks not only for the US, but also for the global economy.
In the first twenty-four hours of his administration, Trump signed 26 executive orders, 12 memoranda, and 4 proclamations, most of which related to energy, trade, government efficiency, and climate policy. In total, in 100 days, the administration issued about 140 presidential decrees – three times more than Joe Biden during the same period. This is an absolute record for recent US history.
The decrees included a massive relaxation of the tax burden on large companies, lowering environmental standards, deregulation in the energy and transportation industries, and limiting funding for a number of social programs, including health care, support for low-income families, and vocational training. The move provided positive momentum for U.S. stock markets, at least through early April, with the S&P 500 rising more than 7% and companies in the defense, construction and energy sectors reporting their best quarterly results since 2018.
On April 2, Trump announced the massive introduction of new import duties — a base rate of 10% for most countries, including Ukraine. For certain categories of goods, the tariff reached 25%, and for the import of cars – even more. At the same time, China received the biggest blow: the customs rate on Chinese goods was raised for the third time in 100 days — up to 145%, which created tension not only between Beijing and Washington, but also within the world trade system.
The new tariffs affected 185 countries of the world. The only exceptions were the states with which the US does not have active trade relations — Russia, Belarus, Cuba, and the DPRK. This created a situation where all global trade with America — from Vietnam to Egypt — began to operate under a regime of risky temporary access. In addition, on April 9, Trump temporarily suspended for 90 days additional reciprocal tariffs that applied to about 60 countries – but this did not soften the general distrust of Washington.
The IMF estimated the consequences of these trade war policies as a global decline in world GDP in 2025 from 3.3% to 2.8%, and the risk of a global recession increased from 17% to 30%. The countries of South Asia, Latin America and Africa, whose economies are pegged to the dollar and do not have a sufficient supply of currency liquidity to compensate for external pressures, were particularly vulnerable. At the same time, the decrease in the dollar did not help – on the contrary, it increased the panic in the markets, because a cheap dollar and a high tariff are incompatible in a stable scenario.
Along with this, the situation is not better in the stock market: the S&P 500 index fell by more than 14% compared to the day of the inauguration. The dollar fell by 5.2%, which was a consequence of the new tariff policy and a sharp deterioration in investor expectations. According to the US Treasury Secretary, such consequences are “normal” and “healthy”, but IMF analysts lowered the forecast for the growth of the US economy in 2025 from 2.7% to 1.8%, and the risk of recession increased from 25% to 40%. This is the worst forecast for the US since the financial crisis of 2008.
At the same time, due to Trump’s customs policy and instability in the American stock markets, the volume of investments in crypto-assets has increased. During the election campaign, Trump promised to make the United States the global bitcoin superpower and the crypto capital of the planet. In March, he ordered the creation of the State Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, which includes the digital currency confiscated by the government. In addition to Bitcoin, currencies such as Ethereum, XRP, Solana and Cardano are included in this reserve. Currently, the US government owns approximately 200,000 bitcoins — the largest amount of any country in the world. Donald Trump also has his own cryptocurrency – memcoin $TRUMP. On April 23, it was announced that the 220 largest holders of this coin will be invited to a private dinner with the president, which will take place on May 22. After this statement, the value of $TRUMP increased by more than 70%, according to the Coinbase platform.
Trump’s policy provoked a reaction from the European Central Bank, which, against the backdrop of an unstable dollar, began to artificially strengthen the euro. This stopped capital outflows but worsened export dynamics, especially for Germany, Italy and France. In March 2025, the export of machine-building products from the Eurozone fell by 6%, which was a direct consequence of the US customs policy and currency distortion. Also, the first public initiatives appeared in the EU regarding the review of participation in some trade mechanisms related to the USA, in particular within the framework of the WTO and the WTO. In Brussels, the prospect of creating new alliances without the participation of Washington is increasingly being discussed. This is not yet a strategic gap, but it is already a real economic segregation caused by the behavior of the American administration.
So, the first hundred days of Donald Trump’s presidency are marked by the consistent construction of a new logic of management, in which priorities are strictly defined and the pragmatic goal is to turn the state into an instrument of maximum unilateral benefit. Instead of stabilization — dismantling of obligations; instead of political flexibility — administrative oppression by decrees; instead of interstate coordination — tariff confrontation. These processes indicate a strategic role according to the logic of the big player, which demonstrates the dismantling of the traditional system of international alliances and the imposition of unilateral approaches to global problems. Trump has renewed the rhetoric of national isolationism, which contributes to destabilization in Europe, weakening NATO and undermining confidence in the transatlantic partnership.
Donald Trump’s policies signal a tough, confrontational course in which public administration increasingly resembles a commercial deal. At the same time, he considers the system of checks and balances as an obstacle, and international politics as a bargain, where the most important question is: what will we get out of it? This approach turns the strategic architecture of the world into a market without rules, where trust is lost, and political alliances are replaced by temporary agreements between the stronger and more profitable. This is no longer politics in the classical sense, but a business model of a political leader who works on the principle of “win everything now, and the world will pay the bill.”
