What's on the White House Agenda for the Next 100 Days?

Steve Odland: Welcome to C-Suite Perspectives, a signature series by The Conference Board. I'm Steve Odland from The Conference Board and the host of this series. And in today's discussion, we're going to talk about the next hundred days of the US administration. What's ahead for the country and the world? 

Joining me today is David K. Young, the president of The Conference Board's public policy center, the Committee for Economic Development. David, welcome. 

David Young: Thanks, Steve. Great to be back. 

Steve Odland:Soeverybody's talking about the first hundred days, but that's just like history, David. And so you really do have to pivot here and start saying, "OK, where's this going to take us?" Cause there's been so much activity that's happened here. But it's all just started. I don't think anything's really, truly, been finished or completed or you can check it off. The question is, what's the agenda for the next hundred days?  

David Young:Yeah, it'sa very important question, and you're quite right. There has been a flurry of activity in the first 100 days, potentially one of the most busy and active first 100 days since Franklin Roosevelt took office in 1933. 

But looking ahead, there are a variety of very important and key policy areas that I think will be instrumental. So let me just list out a few, and I want to prioritize what I think potentially is the most important. 

So, policy areas including tax, tariffs, regulation, immigration, and foreign policy. So of those five, what do we think is the most important? I think it very much depends on your vantage point, but domestically, there is a very strong case for the most important, potentially, to be the tax bill and the debt ceiling. 

So provisions, Steve, of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, expires at the end of this year. If nothing is done, personal income tax rates will go up. And this is something that Congress, the majority of which, doesn't really want. The president would like to see as clean an extension as possible, as quickly as possible, combined with increased funding for key priorities such as immigration. 

But this will have to be combined with an increase in the debt ceiling through the reconciliation process in Congress to prevent government default on the debt. Just to note, reconciliation was also used to pass the tax bill in 2017. There's been a lot of chatter and conversations around reconciliation, so I think it's just important also for me to take a moment and clarify what actually is this reconciliation process. 

So reconciliation means that the bill may pass the Senate with only 51 votes, rather than the usual 60 necessary to invoke cloture and prevent a filibuster. Because the Republicans have 53 votes in the Senate, using reconciliation means that the Republicans would be able to enact the bill on their own without needing Democratic support. It's very unclear, however, for how long the debt ceiling would be extended or by what amount it would have to be raised here, Steve. It would presumably have to be raised to at least cover what the Congressional Budget Office says is the cost of the tax bill, once it scores an actual bill that is admitted to Congress. 

Alternatively, here, Congress could simply decide to raise the debt ceiling to whatever debt it is on a certain date, for instance, the end of the president's term on January 20, 2029. Congress did something similar in the Fiscal Responsibility Act in 2021. The timing of this action on the tax bill and the debt ceiling will depend in part on the government's determination of the X date for default, perhaps aided by market pressures, as well. So some financial services companies are estimating the X date for July, early August, but it also depends on how much the government has actually raised from April 15, and we should have those figures out in the coming weeks. 

Steve Odland: We should point out that most nations don't have a debt ceiling and don't go through this process because you have to raise the ceiling to meet the deficits that are being incurred. Soit's not really a choice. You spend the money,you've got to raise the debt ceiling. But politicians on both sides of the aisle have used the debt ceiling increase through Congress to demand other things. And Both sides have held the other side hostage. It's really an awful way to do business. But you're right, that's there. 

But I think it's interesting that you said the tax bill and the debt ceiling, because I think if you picked up any American newspaper today or any source of media, all you would hear about is tariffs. So tariffs are secondary in your mind. 

David Young: I think you have to deal with immediate domestic issues before turning to international relations.They're both important, they're not necessarily mutually exclusive, but I think youhave to prioritize what's happening here at home in the US and then look at how to prioritize other issues. 

Steve Odland: But stating another way, the debt ceiling and this tax bill is a bigger alligator. There is this snapping alligator there on the tariffs because we've started this whole thing. And whether you like it or not, it started. And there's reported to be, I don't know, upwards to 70 different countries that are engaged in discussions here. And there's a lot of happy talk around it. Nothing's really happened yet. But that kind of needs to get done, you got to start knocking some of these off to normalize trade, don't you? And to make sure that our supply chain doesn't go wiggy on us.  

David Young: Yeah, you are absolutely right. And it is somewhat of an unclear period, as, Steve, we're now in this 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs. That 90 days ends on July 9, and many of the major trading partners, if not all, of the trading partners will want to reach agreements to reduce them or suspend them by this time. 

It remains unclear, to be honest, what concessions other countries will have to make, the extent to which other issues, including the impact and role of geopolitics, will be considered and the administration's willingness to accept promises of investments or US exports. The administration, as you said, I've got the number: Just over 60 countries that have requested negotiations with the US with regards to trade and tariffs. 

The vice president is out and about traveling. He was in India seeking to negotiate a new bilateral trade agreement with India. That could be a model for other countries. Japan wants to negotiate a model, as well, so they're all vying to try and figure out what is best for them. Negotiations with the EU could be very difficult, both on exports and on US criticism of the EU Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act. But even with these agreements, we could potentially see more tariffs coming. 

The administration has launched investigations under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, preliminary to imposing tariffs on critical minerals, semiconductors, and related products, as well as pharmaceuticals and related products like precursory chemicals. Under this, they have 270 days to investigate, but perhaps this could conclude earlier. The other thing we may see here, as well, beyond just tariffs and trade negotiations between countries, is sectoral tariffs, as well, in this arena.  

Steve Odland: But you're hearing, especially with close allies like Canada and Mexico, that there could be some deals relatively soon, maybe within the next hundred days. Maybe theywon't have inked every detail, but they will have a deal in hand. You hear the same on UK, India, Vietnam, which is an important alternative to China for manufacturing. So there are some lights starting to shine at the end of the tunnel. And so maybe in the next hundred days, we can get a fair number of these under underway. 

You don't hear China in that. China's probably not going to be in the next hundred.  

David Young:Yeah. You've seen, of all of them, China come back the hardest, from their retaliatory efforts, the hardest as it relates to other countries. The other interesting thing, you mentioned Canada, they obviously have a new prime minister. Carney was in Washington this week meeting with Trump. And as we know as well, the USMCA has to be renegotiated. 

Quite a few variables out there. And I think, again, a lot of these countries are wanting this resolved within the next hundred days because the longer it goes, the more impact there is to businesses and policies moving forward. 

Steve Odland:Yeah, and relations, which would be terrible. It's one thing when you're dealing with a geopolitical foe, it's different when you're dealing with your close allies, military and trade allies. And the integrated supply chain in North America is probably the most important situation that we've got to deal with. But that's a lot to do in the next hundred days. 

You also have this ticking clock of the midterm elections, which are next year already, next November, a year from this November. But that season, the midterm season, kicks off in January, typically. So really, we're in May. You have probably six months to get all of these things resolved, all of the important trade deals that are up in the air, the tax bill, as you said, and the debt ceiling. 

So the next hundred days, I think that's why you positioned it as urgent, for a lot of reasons. The administration understands they'll lose the House or Senate or both if they don't have this wrapped up in the next hundred, 130 days or so, right?  

David Young:Yeah, you're exactly right. And they will want to focus on showing results by whatever key performance indicators they have. Notably, a little bit more security and stability in policy, in decision making, and also the markets.  

Steve Odland:Yeah. Yeah, markets as well. Now you have this whole DOGE thing, which is really interesting to watch. People have been talking about trying to take costs out of the government. I think, if you went down the street and you asked every citizen that you saw, "Should we take costs out of the government?" I think the majority would probably say yes. You probably can't get two of them to agree on where to take the costs out. 

And I think that's why this overlay of an independent look through a DOGE vehicle is interesting. Whether or not it's the best way is to be seen. But the key driver of that was Elon Musk, and now he's going to be leaving this role and getting back to his knittingon his company. So what happens to DOGE in the next hundred days?  

David Young:Yeah, it's a great question. Just one thing to add here in terms of people agreeing. You mentioned where they may agree or disagree, but it's also, "How do you go about making these cuts?" I think you're exactly right. There aren't many people that disagree that the bureaucracy is somewhat bloated and could be more efficient and more effective. And there are two dimensions around the DOGE efforts: having the impact that it hopes to have, which is where to make those cuts, but also how to go about making those cuts. So yeah, with regards to Elon Musk, yeah, he's leaving his role in the administration. 

Quite a bit of litigation continues on the DOGE efforts to reorganize the government, including personnel reductions and efforts to end the functions of entire agencies such as USAID and also the Voice of America. I think you should be able to expect more court decisions, perhaps even from the Supreme Court in the next hundred days and beyond. 

Now also, the DOGE effort is expanding beyond just spending cuts. It's expanding towards the area of regulation. A good example here is all agencies have been told to send lists of regulations they wish to repeal to the Office of Management and Budget in coordination with the DOGE team leads at each of those agencies. This will lead to likelyrepeal of many regulations with significant economic effects without using typical notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures. 

So I think, yes, Elon Musk started the DOGE efforts. He's very much spurred it and been the heartbeat of that organization. But I think we should all anticipate those efforts continuing to move forward, as there's, as you said at the beginning here, Steve, this recognition and willingness to streamline government and increase efficiency and effectiveness moving forward.  

Steve Odland: The involvement of the courts is largely due to the administration's attempt to test the boundaries on what belongs in the executive branch versus what belongs in the legislative branch, with obviously the judicial branch sitting in judgment of that. 

But that's what most of these court cases are about, saying, look, Congress allocated these funds and turned it over to the executive branch to execute. So the executive branch can't just determine unto their own not to execute it, not to spend the money. And so these are the test cases that are rattling through. Now we have the end of the term coming up at the end of June. So lots of stuff to be decided before then.  

David Young: Yes. And just to just one point, just to comment, I think you've seen, and this is not just with Trump, it'salmost with every president, pushing the boundaries of executive power and authority. And obviously the US has its checks and balances, but there's always this kind of gray area in terms of what can the executive do, what can he not do? And whether it's Trump, Biden, Obama, or whomever, they have always pushed the boundaries with regards to their level of authority and power. 

With regards to the Supreme Court, what else is on its docket? It has a very active regular docket with cases on, for instance, a proposed religious charter school, Medicare payments to hospitals, and criminal law beyond its regular docket here. It will almost certainly have to decide major cases concerning the powers of the president, as we've mentioned, including cases on impoundment of appropriated funds, whether the president can shut an agency that was in fact established by Congress, and whether the president has the power to fire members of multi-member agencies such as the FTC and also the Federal Reserve. The court's term, just so we know, ends around July 4.  

Steve Odland:Yeah, a good day for it, too. We're talking about the next hundred days. We're going to take a short break and be right back. 

Welcome back to C-Suite Perspectives. I'm your host, Steve Odland, from The Conference Board. 

I'm joined today by David Young, the president of The Conference Board's public policy center, which is called the Committee for Economic Development. So Davy, before the break, we were talking about this challenge, or this tension, between the executive branch and the legislative branch. And a lot of that's being tested in the courts. 

There's another tension that has broken forth. But here again, it's not unique to this administration, and that's between the Federal Reserve and the executive branch. Talk about that tension and what the current issues are. 

David Young:Yeah. Stepping back for a moment on this, just to set the scene with regards to this topic. In regulation, the president has taken a strong line. First, issuing an executive order to put independent regulatory agencies, this is including the Federal Reserve, more directly under the control of the president. From this, he has then had the ability to fire commissioners of independent agencies, including two Democratic commissioners on the FTC, and has, as you mentioned, Steve, been threatening to fire the Fed Chairman Jerome Powell. 

He does this under the theory of the unitary executive—essentially, that these independent agencies now cannot be truly independent, must in fact report to the executive branch.  

Steve Odland: He did walk that back though, just to be clear. He walked back the intent to fire the Fed chair when the markets dropped. 

David Young: Yes. 

Steve Odland: Thereby giving away that what he was really doing is, he was posturing and rattling swords here. But he said he had no intention to do that. So it is interesting to watch the style and the process here, but he's acknowledged that one at least.  

David Young:Yeah, yeah, he sure did. It is also important here to note, and I find this really fascinating with what he was doing.It's not only legally very difficult to make that decision, but it's also difficult in market terms, which you've alluded to. Any movement in that direction would prompt market volatility, as it did. 

Just so listeners understand this, and I find this part pretty interesting, just around how difficult it could be in a scenario, should he go down this path. The chair of the Federal Reserve is appointed, yes, by the president and confirmed by the Senate to a four-year term. The chair also serves as a member of the Fed's Board of Governors, where,believe it or not, he serves a 14-year term. So Chair Powell's leadership ends in May 2026, but his seat on the board does not expire until 2028. 

So to remove the Fed chair, first, the president would have to remove them from the Board of Governors. And that is only allowed for cause. It is a high bar, and there is no precedent set to date on that. Cause is precisely defined as, let's say, misconduct, neglect of duty, incompetence, or violation of ethical standards. So removing the Fed chair, simply put, is a legal minefield. 

In market terms, the Fed's power rests on a simple idea, which is independence from political pressure. That's not just doctrine, let's just say, that's market gospel. In short, threatening the Fed doesn't soothe markets. Rather, it spooks them, and actually, the result could be opposite to what the administration actually wants to see.So you could potentially see higher rates, weaker confidence, and market turmoil. 

Steve Odland: But he said he is not going to do it. Just kidding, move along, nothing to see here. But the reason that there's the tension is because interest rates have remained high—discount rate, the Fed discount rates remain high. Therefore, interest rates have remained high, which means mortgage rates have remained high, and that market has been tight. And h e's saying, reduce the discount rate. And the Fed is saying, not so fast, because there's all this volatility and uncertainty created by the tariffs. 

Sothere'salmost a circular argument here. But it is an issue, right? It'salmost a Catch-22. You can't really jumpstart the economy until the discount rate starts to come down. You can't do that until the economy, there's clarity here. Hence the tension. But there's also been this tension between the Fed chair and almost every president. Some have been less public about it, but it's always been out there. 

David Young:Yeah, always, or tension's always been out there. Then also, Steve, to your point, you mentioned these two words, a circular argument. I think it just goes to show how intertwined and interconnected everything is, not just in politics and policy, but also connected to business.  

Steve Odland:Yeah. Now, we were talking about tariffs before the break, and of course, that is essentially a geo-economic issue, but it's also a geopolitical one. 

There are other geopolitical issues beyond this. And hence you get into a whole litany of issues in the South China Sea, the potential blockade of Taiwan, which they've been practicing live fire exercises there. You've got the spying going on in the polar region, including Greenland by those adversaries. You've got the construction of Russian bases on the Finnish border and in and around the Baltics, hence saber-rattling that if Ukraine gets settled, then you've got potentially to deal with a Baltic situation. Lots and lots of concerns while at the same time, our forces have been diminishing, and so there's a need for modernization of all of this. And so if you stitch together all of these geopolitical issues, what do you see happening in the next hundred days?  

David Young:Yeah. So Steve, you're exactly right. Lots of concerns. And these concerns, as we know, they're not static. They are changing very rapidly. Just a few things. Before I mentioned some of the things that have evolved just, honestly, in the last 48 hours. Beyond the efforts to end the war in Ukraine, which I'm delighted to hear you'll be doing another podcast on in a little bit more detail, we're obviously dealing with the efforts to avoid war with Iran. 

Also, NATO has been a big topic of many administrations, but also the second Trump administration. The NATO summit, just so our listeners know, will occur in late June in The Hague. The administration will press hard for European increases in defense spending, while allies will be looking for signals as to the extent of the US' future commitment to Europe and NATO. Discussions over the military future of Europe will likely intersect in some way, with difficult negotiations over tariffs with the EU, including US' criticism of the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act. European leaders will continue to want a strong US presence, I think, both militarily and commercially. 

You mentioned Asia, just briefly, if there is the possibility of a Trump-Xi summit in June, then US posture in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as policy towards Taiwan, will become more important. 

I would also note that the report to the president, which he requested on US membership of international organizations and conventions, is due in early August. He's asking to see if they can be reformed to favor the US interest in a slightly better way, or whether the US should withdraw or change their commitment or relationship. Obviously, we're seeing changes to multilateral organizations from the US perspective, including the World Health Organization, Paris Climate Agreements, and a few other smaller UN bodies. 

It is unclear if the report will lead to immediate US withdrawals or begin a period of renegotiations with affected organizations, so time will tell on that side. Interestingly, I do mention multilateral organizations, last month, obviously, the World Bank and IMF held their spring meetings in DC. And following those, Secretary Bessant has excluded withdrawal from the World Bank and the IMF. Sothere's not one blanket policy or statement coming out of the administration. It's very much on a case-by-case basis. 

Two other important issues just to mention, and these have evolved dramatically in the last couple days. India-Pakistan, increased conflict and retaliation on that border front. And while we hope for it not to escalate, it's not without possibilities. And the other is Israel and Gaza. Israel coming out recently this week, promising a concluding move with regards to Gaza and using additional troops to take over the entire enclave. So a variety of geopolitical and geo-economic issues emerging, as they always have done, which I think will continue to require strong leadership from the US. 

It's also interesting what the US is doing with regards to potentially restructuring the US State Department. Times do change. Steve, you mentioned earlier, no one's going to disagree with bureaucracy being a little bit slow. And I think it is interesting, just given the pace of change, what happens within business and government, and especially geopolitics. How do we make, and I think this will be one of the interesting challenges for the administration, how do they make the US State Department more effective, more agile, more responsive to the fast-changing pace that we're seeing within geopolitics today?  

Steve Odland: And last question, just wrapping up quickly, What do you expect to see from Congress in the next hundred days?  

David Young:Yeah. Beyond the tax bill and debt ceiling, both of which will be top of Congress's agenda for the next hundred days, the 2026 budget, the 12 budget bills will provide an opportunity for Congress to restore, if it wishes, funding for programs and personnel cuts in the DOGE reorganization efforts. In particular, Congress will have to consider the proposed reorganization of the State Department that I've mentioned in foreign aid. The budget bills offer Congress's best chance to potentially reassert its power over the purse. 

Let's not also forget here, border security, immigration, and other issue areas that Trump ran his campaign on, one of which would be the fentanyl drug crisis happening in the US from the southern border.  

Steve Odland: The next hundred days, all delivered with traditional British understatement. David Young, thanks for being with us today. 

David Young: A pleasure, Steve. Great to be here. Appreciate it. 

Steve Odland: And thanks to all of you for listening to C-Suite Perspectives. I'm Steve Odland, and this series has been brought to you by The Conference Board.