First 100 Days: Trump’s Foreign Policy Disruption Is Just Beginning

James M. Lindsay is the Mary and David Boies distinguished senior fellow in U.S. foreign policy and director of Fellowship Affairs at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Donald Trump made clear during the presidential campaign that he intended to disrupt U.S. foreign policy by doing things differently if he returned to the White House. The only question he left unanswered was whether he would roll out his changes slowly and systematically or fast and furiously.

One hundred days in, the answer is clear: Trump has opted to do everything, everywhere, all at once. In just three months, he has challenged or changed almost every aspect of U.S. foreign policy. This includes pushing Ukraine to accept an unfavorable ceasefire, raising tariffs to levels not seen in more than a century, and shuttering the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Millennium Challenge Account, Voice of America, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

Trump’s supporters have hailed his boldness in upending the way the United States does business with the world. He can rightly say to them, “Promises made. Promises kept.” That does not mean, however, that his disruption is making the United States more secure or more prosperous—or that he intends to slow down any time soon.

Tariffs, Territorial Pressures, and a Hazy China Strategy

In just one hundred days, Trump’s “flooding the zone” strategy has produced considerable chaos and uncertainty. This is most obvious with the tariff hikes. It has been four weeks since the president’s so-called Liberation Day, and yet his goal with these proposed levies remains unclear. He has said he wants to pressure other countries into more favorable trade deals, force manufacturers to relocate production to the United States, and create a new stream of government revenue that would allow for bigger income tax cuts. These goals are at odds with one another. At the same time, Trump has whipsawed his followers—and the stock markets—with his on-again, off-again tariff announcements.

Of course, all new administrations stumble to some degree coming out of the starting blocks. It takes months to fully staff up the executive branch, and the new foreign policy team must learn to work with one another. But Trump’s early missteps have been fueled just as much by his own comfort with chaos as his senior leadership team’s lack of experience running large bureaucracies. The second fact could change in the coming months, but the first is a feature of Trump’s leadership style.  

Trump’s disruption has come with some surprises. He said nothing on the campaign trail about making Canada the fifty-first state, acquiring Greenland, or retaking control of the Panama Canal. But all three have figured prominently in his rhetoric since returning to office. He has also said the United States should “take over” Gaza and launched a more aggressive military campaign against the Houthis in Yemen, despite his criticism of past American conflicts and the presidents who started them.

Some aspects of Trump’s foreign policy remain undefined. The most significant is his intentions toward China. He has staffed his national security team with China hawks like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz. They believe countering Chinese power is the top strategic priority for U.S. foreign policy.

Trump does not necessarily share that view. He has accused Taiwan of stealing the U.S. semiconductor industry and cast doubt on whether he would defend the island from Chinese aggression. Indeed, he seems more interested in pressuring Beijing to help curb fentanyl trafficking and striking a new trade deal than in limiting Chinese power in Asia.

The Foreign Policy Results So Far

While Trump’s foreign policy disruptions have dominated the news, he has notched few substantive successes.

Immigration. Migrant crossings along the southern U.S. border are at near record lows. However, they fell sharply during President Joe Biden’s final year in office. While immigration arrests have increased, deportation numbers look to be lower than during Biden’s last year in the White House. One reason for this is that Trump and congressional Republicans have not increased funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to deport the “millions and millions.” 

Trade. Despite White House trade advisor Peter Navarro’s claim that Trump will negotiate ninety trade deals in ninety days, the president has not struck a single significant agreement. Moreover, he seems to have recognized that he overshot the mark with his tariffs on China. He said just last week that they “will come down substantially.”

Ukraine. Trump has yet to settle the war in Ukraine despite his claims that he could hash out a peace deal in a single day. Russian President Vladimir Putin has stuck to his hardline demands. Rather than criticizing the Kremlin, however, Trump has given the Russian leader much of what he has asked for while berating Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for standing in the way of peace.

Gaza. The president has neither forced a ceasefire in Gaza nor engineered Hamas’s strategic defeat. His call to turn Gaza into “the Riviera of the Middle East” by forcing out Palestinians has been roundly criticized in Arab capitals.

Houthis. U.S. military strikes in Yemen have killed numerous Houthi fighters, but the attacks have not yet restored freedom of navigation in the Red Sea. Moreover, the Iran-backed militant group has shot down at least seven multimillion-dollar drones, raising questions about whether the exchange ratio favors the United States.

Panama Canal. The president has not reasserted U.S. control over the canal. However, he has pressured Panama into restricting Chinese commercial activities and allowing the United States to rotate its troops into the canal zone.

Anxious Allies and Declining Public Approval

Trump’s foreign policy moves have strained relations with traditional U.S. friends, partners, and allies. Of course, allied countries share their displeasure with every new administration, but the anger and despair coming out of these capitals is far deeper and more personal since Trump’s inauguration.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, whose victory in the Canadian national elections yesterday owes a lot to Trump’s talk of annexing Canada, has said the United States is “no longer a reliable partner.” Incoming German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has vowed “to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA.” Singapore’s minister of defense has lamented that the United States “has changed from liberator to great disruptor to a landlord seeking rent.”

This allied dismay has both Beijing and Moscow cheering, even if they have their own beefs with Trump. They know that a divided alliance network weakens U.S. power. At the same time, both countries are delighted to watch as Trump dismantles democracy-promotion programs and international media channels that they have long denounced as interfering in their domestic affairs.

At home, Americans are also recoiling at Trump’s disruption. A recent Fox News survey found that 55 percent of registered voters disapprove of the president’s job performance. On specific issues, he has a positive rating only on border security, with 55 percent approving. Everywhere else, disapproval outpaces approval. Most notably, Trump is underwater on both tariffs (33 percent to 58 percent) and foreign policy (40 percent versus 54 percent). Polls by CNN, the New York Times/Sienna College, Reuters/Ipsos, and Washington Post/ABC/Ipsos paint a similar picture.

This growing public dissatisfaction has not yet shaken the support Trump enjoys among Republicans on Capitol Hill. That could change if the stock market continues to fall or the economy goes into recession. Even so, Congress could find it difficult to constrain Trump’s foreign policy moves given the constitutional and practical advantages that all presidents enjoy in foreign affairs.

Will Trump’s Approach Change?

Trump insists that his disruption is producing big wins for the United States, and some successes could be within his reach. The greatest potential lies on the tariff front. China seems unlikely to give the president what he wants, but smaller economies could decide that discretion is the better part of valor and offer concessions that Trump can pocket. His bargaining leverage could evaporate, however, should the courts rule that he exceeded his authority when imposing his “reciprocal” tariffs.

Trump could also succeed in persuading Iran to limit its nuclear program. U.S. sanctions have helped hamstring Iran’s economy, and Israel’s military has destroyed Tehran’s regional proxies and its domestic air defenses. Tehran’s willingness to hold face-to-face negotiations attests to its weakness. That does not mean that the negotiations will be easy or yield all that the United States wants.

But it is just as easy to see Trump’s disruption producing large, and lasting, policy failures and diminished U.S. influence. Topping the list is his policy toward Ukraine. Should Washington walk away from Kyiv, and especially if it recognizes Moscow’s claims to Crimea and the parts of eastern Ukraine that Russian forces now control, transatlantic relations could be left in tatters.

The ripple effect from that turmoil will extend well beyond Europe. Asian allies will also question Washington’s reliability as a security guarantor. They could choose to improve relations with China in ways that could harm U.S. interests. At a minimum, slashing U.S. humanitarian aid and closing down international broadcasting programs has created an opening that China is seeking to exploit.

Nor are Trump’s disruptive instincts likely to subside simply because his presidency has hit an arbitrary milestone on the calendar. He has not renounced his designs for Canada, Greenland, or the Panama Canal. He is also considering deep cuts to the size of the U.S. Army that would have immense consequences for the U.S. force posture globally.

So, expect Trump’s disruption to continue. Given the White House’s results over its first one hundred days, it is likely a safe bet that the costs to U.S. security and prosperity will far outweigh the benefits.

This work represents the views and opinions solely of the author. The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher, and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.