Policy Backgrounders

The Next One Hundred Days – and Beyond: What Lies Ahead

April 29, 2025

The first one hundred days of the Trump Administration have been the most active to a new Administration since Franklin Roosevelt took office in 1933. Understanding the policy implications, and what lies ahead, will be critical for business.

• Governance style has marked the new Administration, at times provoking uncertainty that has moved markets. At the same time, the Administration has also adopted many policy changes precisely as it indicated during the campaign and transition.
• Litigation on the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) effort to reduce personnel and restructure government will continue, and the deregulation efforts under DOGE will begin in earnest.
• Tariffs, continued deregulation, forthcoming Supreme Court decisions, and geopolitics will be critical themes in the next 100 days.
• Congress will begin focusing on the tax bill, the debt ceiling and the Fiscal Year 2026 budget bills.

The Next Hundred Days – and Beyond

The Conference Board’s Navigating Washington hub addresses major developments from both the White House and Cabinet agencies. Reflecting on the first 100 days of the second Trump Administration, it is possible to analyze several major themes of the new Administration, in part to suggest what may lie ahead. As in the first Trump Administration, one key distinctive is a different style of governing, and negotiation. Some observers have labelled this a “transactional” style, but the changes in both style and substance go far deeper.

What themes are likely to dominate the next 100 days and even deeper into the new term? Several key issues stand out:

Tax bill and debt ceiling. Provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act expire at the end of the year. 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 to prevent government default on the debt. The timing of this will depend in part on the government’s determination of the “X date” for default, perhaps aided by market pressures.

Tariff negotiations and Section 232 investigations. The 90-day pause on the “reciprocal” tariffs ends in July; major trading partners will want to reach agreements to reduce or suspend them before this. It remains unclear what concessions other countries will have to make, the extent to which other issues (including geopolitics) will be considered, and the Administration’s willingness to accept promises of investment or US exports. In addition, the current Section 232 investigations preliminary to imposing tariffs on critical minerals, semiconductors, and pharmaceuticals will continue and perhaps be concluded early.

Tariffs have impacted business planning – the number of containers expected to arrive in August 2025 about 27% lower than in August 2024. At the same time, the Administration seems generally reluctant to make unilateral concessions. Shifts in policy, for instance a tariffs exemption on smartphones, but then stating this is not permanent (tariffs will be introduced through the Section 232 investigation) introduce yet more uncertainty.

What is clear is that Trump’s tariffs policies have spurred a flurry of bilateral negotiations as countries seek to restructure trade relations with the world’s largest economy.

Investment policy. The “America First Investment Policy” restricted both Chinese investment in the US and certain outbound US investment to China. It called for a study of the US-China bilateral tax treaty and highlighted what it sees as the impacts of the treaty, China’s admission to the World Trade Organization, and the granting of Most Favored Nation treatment to China. At the same time, however, there have been hints that the Administration seeks a deal with China on the broader economic relationship. The studies requested by the Investment Policy will likely be completed in the next 100 days.

DOGE and deregulation. In regulation, the President has taken a strong line, first issuing an Executive Order to put independent regulatory agencies (including the U.S. Federal Reserve) more directly under the control of the President, including firing Commissioners of independent agencies and threatening to fire Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, under the theory of the unitary executive. Litigation on this will reach the Supreme Court, as the Administration has asked the Court to overturn its 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor and give the President the power to fire, for instance, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioners.

Now, the DOGE effort is expanding beyond spending cuts to regulation, including the likely repeal of many regulations with economic effect without using typical notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures. A shift to what the Administration terms “energy dominance” – a change in policy to expand all types of US energy production – will be a key focus of this deregulation effort.

Both DOGE efforts – that on Federal personnel and government reorganization and that on deregulation – will continue to provoke litigation at the Supreme Court as the Administration seeks clarity on its authority.

The Supreme Court. The Court’s Term ends around July 4. Beyond its regular docket, it will almost certainly have to decide major cases concerning the powers of the President, including cases on impoundment of appropriated funds, whether the President can shut an agency established by Congress, and whether the President has power to fire members of multi-member agencies such as the FTC (or the Federal Reserve).

Geopolitics: Beyond the efforts to end the war in Ukraine and avoid war with Iran, the NATO Summit 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.

European leaders (as well as our allies in the Asia-Pacific region) continue to want a strong US presence, both military and commercial, in the conviction that the postwar order has been overwhelmingly positive not just for them, but for the US as well. Discussions over the military future of Europe will likely intersect in some way with difficult negotiations over tariffs with the European Union, including US criticism of the Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act. 

Multilateral organizations: The report to the President on US membership of international organizations and conventions is due in early August. It is unclear if the report will lead to immediate US withdrawal (for instance, denouncing treaties) or begin a period of negotiations with affected organizations. US membership of the World Trade Organization, if a reform package cannot be agreed, seems at risk; other withdrawals cannot be ruled out. While Secretary Bessent has appeared to exclude withdrawal from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, this merely underscores that the original Order contained no exemption for international financing institutions.  

Congress and the 2026 Budget. Beyond the tax bill and the debt ceiling, both of which will be at the top of Congress’ agenda for the next hundred days, Congress will begin consideration of the 2026 budget. The 12 budget bills will provide an opportunity for Congress to restore, if it wishes, funding for programs and personnel cut in the DOGE reorganization effort. In particular, Congress will have to consider the proposed reorganization of the State Department and foreign aid. The budget bills offer Congress’ best chance to assert its “power over the purse.”

Conclusion

That American sage, Yogi Berra, famously said that “it’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” (The quotation is alternatively credited to Danish physician Niels Bohr.) At the same time, there has been remarkable policy consistency as well. If a popular saying during the first Trump Administration was to “look at what the President does, not what he says,” in this second Administration, words and announced policies matter greatly. Even if the eventual outcome is less impactful than the original words might imply, the risks of ignoring those words as clues to future policy may be high.