Apr.18

electoral-vote.com

Dem 47

   

GOP 53

The First 100 Days: Trump Off to a Rocky Start

The first 100 days of a presidency are supposed to be a honeymoon, in which the new chief executive has lots of momentum, and a staff that is enthusiastic and not yet running on fumes, and public opinion is very positive (or, at least, very "let's wait and see"). There is very little question that Donald Trump hit the ground running. And for him, the first 100 days is extra meaningful because of his "do stuff now and worry about the consequences later" approach.

The 100th day of Trump v2.0 will come at the end of this month, and as we were gathering material for today's post, we could not help but be struck, over and over, by the notion that while he's certainly caused a lot of chaos, and done a lot of harm, and gotten a lot of press attention, things are actually going pretty poorly for him. Let's take a look at eight different areas in which that appears to be the case:

1. The Economy: Of the items on this list, this is one of the two biggies. Every single person reading this knows the U.S. economy is on a shaky footing right now. And every single person reading this knows the primary reason why.
   
   Trump, of course, never makes a mistake, and he certainly never takes responsibility. But even he knows that no politician, even Donald John Trump, can avoid taking a massive hit if the economy goes down the toilet. So, he is already in desperation mode, using his three favorite strategies for "dealing" with a problem like this. The first of those is passing the buck. Trump would very much like to blame Joe Biden for the current state of the economy, but it's not working very well. You don't have to be a Wall Street analyst with a degree in finance from the Wharton School to understand that things were humming along throughout 2024 and into 2025, and only took a dive... oh, sometime shortly after January 20.
   
   This being the case, Trump has now moved on to a new scapegoat, namely Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. Yesterday, Trump hopped on his rag-tag little social media platform to share this:

   The ECB is expected to cut interest rates for the 7th time, and yet, "Too Late" Jerome Powell of the Fed, who is always TOO LATE AND WRONG, yesterday issued a report which was another, and typical, complete "mess!" Oil prices are down, groceries (even eggs!) are down, and the USA is getting RICH ON TARIFFS. Too Late should have lowered Interest Rates, like the ECB, long ago, but he should certainly lower them now. Powell's termination cannot come fast enough!

   Powell might be the finest Fed chair in the history of that institution; certainly he's not the incompetent boob Trump says he is. At times, the President has suggested that Powell will resign, if asked (Powell says he will not) or that it's within his power to fire Powell. Trump may try it, but the rules, as currently written, say that a Fed chair can only be removed for malfeasance. So, when the matter ended up in court, Trump's lawyers would either have to argue that something that Powell has done constitutes malfeasance, or that the rules that keep him from being removed are not valid. You never know what this Supreme Court, with its fans of unitary executive theory, will do, but either argument is a tough sell.
   
   Politically, meanwhile, blaming Powell is also a tough sell. Most Americans don't really understand what the Federal Reserve Bank does, or what the duties of its chair might be. On the other hand, they are quite capable of understanding that the economy was doing fine until January of this year, then wasn't doing fine. They are also capable of coming up with a higher-profile and more plausible candidate to blame for that. Another problem is that if Powell really is to blame, well, the buck really stops with the president who appointed him. And that president was... Donald Trump. In short, all roads lead back to the current occupant of the Oval Office.
   
   Moving along, strategy two, which is in evidence in the above "truth," is to gaslight. There is no possible way that "the USA is getting RICH ON TARIFFS." Even if that was how tariffs worked, and it isn't, the new tariffs have not been in place long enough to produce any meaningful revenue (remember, cargoes already at sea were exempted from the new 10% rate). Trump has also become obsessed with claiming (as he does in his "truth") that egg prices are way, way down. At a press conference yesterday, he insisted that since he has become president, the price of eggs has dropped 92%. The truth is that eggs were selling, on average, for $5.81/dozen the day he took office, and now they are selling, on average, for $6.23/dozen. We're a decade into the Age of Trump (the politician), and we still don't really understand the point of such a wild, clearly falsifiable claim. If Trump contented himself with saying "I promised to bring egg prices down, and they are down," that would not be true, but most people would probably buy it. However, to claim they're down 92%? Everyone who buys eggs surely realizes that their most recent purchase of a dozen was not accomplished for thirty cents. Even if someone hasn't bought eggs, they would surely know that such a decrease, in the span of a couple of months, is an impossibility.
   
   We believe that the wild—indeed, borderline insane—lies are another sign of Trump's desperation in this area. And that brings us to his third strategy, such as it is: making wild promises. Knowing full well that people are unhappy about the tariffs, and possibly having realized, on some level, that they are not the magic pill he claims, Trump met with Italian PM Giorgia Meloni yesterday and declared that there would be a trade deal with Europe "within weeks."
   
   Among things that are under the general rubric of "politics," there are few things we know less about than trade policy. However, we are certainly familiar enough with successful trade pacts (NAFTA, etc.) and unsuccessful trade pacts (the Trans-Pacific Partnership, etc.) to know that these things are among the trickiest diplomatic tasks to be found anywhere. There are so many moving pieces, and so many stakeholders, and there is so much risk involved, that it takes years to hammer out anything that is even within the ZIP Code of "substantive."
   
   What we conclude from this—and this is hardly a profound insight—is that either Trump will "forget" his promise by the time May rolls around, or he will "fulfill" his promise with a "deal" that makes a few cosmetic changes, and then will declare himself to be a conquering hero. Probably the latter but, either way, it's not the behavior of someone whose economic policy is going well.
   
   
2. The Courts: The other biggie on this list is Trump's ongoing battles with the judicial branch. Yesterday, the administration got smacked upside the head yet again in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia matter.
   
   As we noted Wednesday, following the Supreme Court's remand to clarify the use of the term "effectuate," U.S. District Court judge Paula Xinis ordered the Trump administration to demonstrate their efforts to "facilitate" the release of Abrego Garcia. Not only did the administration refuse, but they applied for an emergency stay of the order in the Fourth Circuit court of Appeals. In a scathing rebuke of Trump's actions, a 41-year veteran of the Court, a Reagan appointee and a prominent conservative, wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel denying the request for an emergency stay. In an opinion that was clearly written for the benefit of Chief Justice John Roberts, Judge Harvie Wilkinson expressed frustration and disbelief that the administration wasn't simply correcting their admitted mistake by bringing Garcia back to the U.S. instead of wasting his time with a meritless request for a stay. The Court reminded Trump that the issue is one of due process, which everyone acknowledges Garcia is entitled to and hasn't received. In other words: If they're so sure he is a member of MS-13, bring him back and prove it!
   
   The Court also did not mince words in rejecting the argument that their mistake was irremediable because Garcia was on foreign soil. Putting aside the fact that Garcia, along with almost 200 other illegally deported men, is being detained at the U.S. Government's expense ($14 million of taxpayer funds—it would seem that Elon Musk hasn't found that waste or abuse yet), so that Garcia and the other men are essentially under U.S. control, the Court took this argument to its logical conclusion. "The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done... If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home?*" (The note indicated by the asterisk references Trump's recent announcements that he wants to ship "homegrown" prisoners to foreign prisons.)
   
   In the end, the appeals court struck a hopeful note—one that can only be realized if the Supreme Court finds that Trump is responsible for bringing Garcia back to the U.S. Wilkinson suggests that Trump can still do the right thing, show respect for the rule of law and the courts, and ensure Garcia's safe return to his family.
   
   And so, once again, this is going to end up in the lap of John Roberts and his eight black-robed friends. Thus far, the lower courts have ruled against Trump at about a 75% clip, while the Supremes have largely kept their powder dry. The day will come soon, however, that Roberts & Co. will have to take an actual stand. And the fact that they are kind of dilly-dallying with this case suggests they know it's a stand Trump won't like.
   
   Similarly, the Supremes agreed yesterday to hear arguments about Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. That one really should be a slam dunk, on three levels: (1) the law is very clear here, (2) if the rules are going to change, that is clearly something that has to be done by Congress, not by executive fiat and (3) ruling in Trump's favor would create chaos, and would also be another huge blow to a Court whose credibility is already on life support. It's not impossible that the Supremes could side with Trump, but the odds are that between Garcia and the citizenship XO, SCOTUS is going to poke Trump in the eye, very hard, at least once, and probably twice.
   
   In short, on the whole, the courts appear to be holding the line. It's a story that's still being written, of course, and Trump certainly could be keeping "just ignore the courts" in his back pocket. Still, the early returns are that the judicial branch will be as much a stumbling block for him this time as was the case last time.
   
   (And incidentally, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-MD, was able to meet with Garcia yesterday, so the good news is that he's still alive.)
   
   
3. The Senate: If Republicans in Congress are finally going to stand up and say "enough," then those Republicans—at least, the first cadre—are almost certainly going to be in the Senate. Members of the Senate not only represent more moderate constituencies, on the whole, but they also don't have to spend quite as much time worrying about the election that's right around the corner, since for them, an election is right around the corner only 33% of the time, as opposed to 100% of the time.
   
   Just this week, there were a couple of interesting news items along these lines. First, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) is certainly a loyal partisan. And so, he's been willing to, for example, vote for Trump's picks to key posts. However, Wicker is also chair of the Armed Services Committee. And, according to reporting from Politico, he has effectively taken on the role that folks like H.R. McMaster and James Mattis did during Trump v1.0, reining in the administration's worst impulses. For example, he's pushed back against withdrawing U.S. troops from Europe, has slammed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth for his careless comments on Ukraine, and has demanded an investigation into the Signal fiasco.
   
   Reportedly, the "mystery" on the Hill is how Wicker is getting away with it, and is not the subject of a few late-night rants on Truth Social. The answer the Politico piece gives is that Wicker is key to getting Trump's military budget plans approved. That may be true, but we think there are some other, pretty obvious, explanations. Wicker is a 73-year-old guy from a deep-red state who is very popular back home and is not up again until 2030. Threatening Wicker with a primary opponent in FIVE YEARS is not exactly going to scare him, especially since he might be retiring anyhow. Further, a pi**ing contest with a popular, longtime Republican might not look so good for the President.
   
   The other "rebel," meanwhile, is Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). Her state is not deep-red, it's either purple-red or just purple. Still, what she shares with Wicker is that she's a conventional, Reagan-style Republican. She has, of course, opposed Trump with her votes a number of times this session. And this week, she gave a pretty remarkable speech in which she criticized the "unlawful" actions of the Trump administration, and also expressed disappointment that her colleagues are not doing their constitutional duty. The Senator also explained to the crowd why her conference has, on the whole, been so meek:

   We are all afraid. It's quite a statement. But we are in a time and a place where I certainly have not been here before. And I'll tell ya, I'm oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice, because retaliation is real. And that's not right.

   Murkowski also said that, behind the scenes, the dynamic is quite different, and that people should expect considerably more pushback from her colleagues once the rubber really hits the road (particularly, she noted, on the issue of cutting Medicaid).
   
   Of course, two senators out of 53, each working in their own way to resist the administration, is not a tidal wave of resistance. But it's also unusual to have reached even this point, this early in a president's term. And if Murkowski is right, the trendlines are not in the President's favor.
   
   
4. The Law Firms: Of the various power-abusing, no-real-precedent-in-American-history initiatives that Trump has come up with since re-assuming power, he's probably had the most success with his bullying of white-shoe law firms. A half a dozen of the biggies waved the white flag without ever taking the field of battle, and coughed up nearly $1 billion in pro bono work to get Trump off their backs.
   
   However, while Trump may have won the battle(s), there's still time for him to lose the war. To start, and as we noted yesterday, Trump has apparently decided that "good enough" was not, in fact, good enough, and he's returned to the trough for more. There are two problems here. The first is that if Trump is not going to operate in good faith, the law firms are entitled to do the same. For example: "Ah yes, $100 million in pro bono work. We had junior associates Dewey, Cheatem and Howe work on the case you wanted us to work on, for an hour each. As chance would have it, their time that day was billed at $33.33 million per hour."
   
   The second problem is that the firms' only goal here is to minimize damage to their bottom lines as best they can. However, since selling out to Trump, the various firms have seen numerous associates leave in protest. There is some evidence that some prominent clients are going to do the same. With these things being the case, and if a "deal" with Trump is subject to constant renegotiation, it would not be too hard for the white-shoe firms to reach a tipping point where it's actually better for the bottom line to say "Fu** off," rather than "Yes, sir!" This becomes even more true if the firms band together (as much as they would not enjoy doing that).
   
   
5. The Universities: As with the law firms, it looks more and more like Trump might have erred in not knowing when "good enough" had arrived, and instead kept going for more and more. That has now put him up against the mighty institution that is Harvard University, as we have written about several times this week. The White House is trying every trick in the book to bring Harvard into "compliance"—on Wednesday it was threats to revoke the school's tax-exempt status, and on Thursday it was a warning that visas for all international students at Harvard would be denied by the Department of Homeland Security. It remains the case that if Harvard allows itself to be put into de facto receivership, to be managed by USA, Inc. and its CEO Donald Trump, then the damage will be lasting, and probably permanent. There's really no choice but to fight, using every (legal) means possible.
   
   Further, other universities who bent the knee are taking a look at Harvard's response, and are also noticing what happened with the white-shoe firms, and are thinking about whether maybe they should start fighting back, too. Remember, it's much harder to mount a successful offensive if you're trying to hit a dozen targets, than if you're trying to hit one. If Harvard resists, it gives Columbia space to resist. If Columbia resists, it gives Princeton space to resist. And so forth.
   
   
6. The Media: As we note above, the Courts have pretty well held the line, even Trump-appointed judges like Trevor McFadden. And the other "estate" that's done pretty well is the media. As a new piece from The Bulwark observes, in response to Trump's latest, multi-"truth" tirade on Truth Social:

   The tirade was a brazen display of Trump's nakedly authoritarian mentality and utter contempt for the First Amendment. But it also has a small silver lining: The very fact that Trump is raging on Truth Social shows that he hasn't been successful in actually bending the mainstream media to his will.

   Even The Washington Post has not changed directions much, if at all, despite Jeff Bezos' dicta.
   
   Because the media is holding the line, at least so far, it's meant there's space for some pretty remarkable Trump-critical reporting and commentary. For example, consider the latest op-ed from The New York Times' David Brooks, who is most certainly a conservative, and is most certainly NOT a Trumper. He writes:

   What is happening now is not normal politics. We're seeing an assault on the fundamental institutions of our civic life, things we should all swear loyalty to—Democrat, independent or Republican.
   
   It's time for a comprehensive national civic uprising. It's time for Americans in universities, law, business, nonprofits and the scientific community, and civil servants and beyond to form one coordinated mass movement. Trump is about power. The only way he's going to be stopped is if he's confronted by some movement that possesses rival power.

   That's really something from a person who is Canadian (and thus very polite) and who learned at the knee of William F. Buckley Jr.
   
   In any event, the early surrenders by Patrick Soon-Shiong at The Los Angeles Times and by Bezos appeared to presage the advent of something akin to Soviet-era Russia. Or even modern-era Russia. But thus far, it really hasn't happened. The upcoming battle between CBS/60 Minutes and the White House will be watched closely, but even if CBS/Viacom chooses to surrender in service of corporate-merger considerations, that's still only one outlet. There are still hundreds of others fighting the good fight.
   
   
7. The Infighting: One of the most notable dynamics of Trump v1.0 was that everyone was always fighting with everyone else, and in public. Politics is full of egotistical people who are convinced that they, and they alone, are right. So, this kind of infighting is common. Indeed, some presidents encouraged it—FDR, for example, felt it kept his underlings sharp. But the public isn't supposed to know about it.
   
   Thus far, numerous bitter feuds have already spilled over into public view. Elon Musk and trade advisor Peter Navarro are, of course, exchanging vicious insults. Musk has been joined in that by former Trump insider Mick Mulvaney. House Republicans are squabbling with each other about the budget, causing Trump to blast them and to tell them to "stop grandstanding." J.D. Vance is going after Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY). And so forth.
   
   There are two potential problems here, from the perspective of the White House. The first is that this kind of bickering makes the administration look unprofessional and less than competent. That said, Trump probably doesn't care about that. The second is that when people are bickering publicly, they are often also leaking information to reporters off the record in order to "win" whatever pi**ing contest they're involved in. Trump definitely cares about that. One wonders if A Warning (the Sequel) will soon be coming to finer bookstores everywhere.
   
   
8. The Approval Rating: We have mentioned, a couple of times this week, that Trump is holding steady with Republican voters, but he's doing very poorly with independents. To give a bit more substance to that, a total of ten pollsters have conducted an approval poll this month AND broke their numbers down by Republican/Democratic/Independent. Here are the numbers for independent voters in each of the polls:
   
   

   Pollster	Approve	Disapprove	Net
   YouGov/Economist	32	56	-24
   J.L. Partners	39	43	-4
   Echelon Insights	44	52	-8
   Harvard-Harris	40	48	-8
   CBS/YouGov	39	61	-22
   YouGov	30	61	-31
   Quantus	39	53	-14
   University of Massachusetts	31	53	-22
   Cygnal	43	55	-12
   Navigator Research	33	56	-23
   Average	37	53.8	-16.8

   
   
   Obviously, the pollsters paint a range of pictures, with right-leaning houses showing things as "not so bad" and many other houses showing things as "disastrous." Still, the overall picture is not pretty. And these are the voters who decide elections, which every single member of Congress who is up in 2026 knows very well.
   
   As a result of Trump's struggles with independents, he's 5.5 points underwater, on average, in overall approval ratings. The silver lining is that it's only the second-worst start to a presidency in the era of approval polling (since the 1940s, roughly speaking). The worst start belongs to... Trump in his first term, who was 8 points underwater at the 100-day mark. Of course, there's still time for Trump v2.0 to catch Trump v1.0.

Please be clear, we are not some sort of wild-eyed optimists. We recognize that there have been some very troubling developments since January 20. But the 90-days-in progress report suggests that the shock engendered by Trump's shock and awe campaign is wearing off, and that the administration now finds itself fighting too many battles, on unfavorable terrain, and without enough (metaphorical) bullets. We shall see what the next 100 days brings. (Z & L)