In his first 100 days of a second term, President Donald Trump has driven a relentless agenda, signing over 140 executive orders to reshape trade, immigration, and federal efficiency.
Yet, two intractable issues have frustrated his ambitions for swift deal-making, testing his self-styled image as a master negotiator.
A Breakneck Pace Meets Roadblocks
Trump’s second term began with a historic 70-minute inaugural address on January 20, 2025, promising to reverse America’s decline “very quickly.” His flurry of executive actions—targeting tariffs, deportations, and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—has transformed policy at a pace unmatched by modern presidents. A CNN poll shows 41% approval, the lowest for any president at 100 days, yet 62% of Republicans praise his speed.
Two issues, however, have defied Trump’s deal-making prowess. Trade talks with China remain deadlocked, and the Russia-Ukraine war persists despite his vows for peace. These challenges highlight constitutional constraints on executive authority, as Congress, courts, and global realities push back.
Economic and Political Stakes
Public discontent is growing. A CNN survey finds 60% believe Trump’s policies have raised local living costs, with only 12% saying prices have dropped. Economic fears dominate, with 69% expecting a recession in 2025, including 32% who see it as very likely. These pressures amplify the urgency of resolving trade and Ukraine, where failure could erode Trump’s political capital.
1. Trade Tensions: China’s Defiance
Trump’s trade agenda, centered on “Liberation Day” tariffs announced April 2, 2025, aimed to bolster U.S. manufacturing. A 10% baseline tariff on all imports, 25% on steel and autos, and up to 145% on Chinese goods has disrupted global markets. China retaliated with 125% tariffs on U.S. imports, escalating a trade war that has shaved $5.4 trillion from Wall Street’s market value since April.
Trump’s team, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, claims over 100 countries have approached the White House for trade deals since a tariff pause was announced April 23, 2025. Yet, no major agreement with China has materialized, frustrating Trump’s goal of a “fair deal.” His April 29 remarks in Macomb County, Michigan, boasted of progress, but China’s Foreign Ministry denies active talks.
Constitutional Trade Powers
The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) grants Congress authority over foreign trade, delegated to the president via the Trade Act of 1974 and IEEPA. Trump’s tariffs, including closing the de minimis loophole for low-value imports, fall within this scope. However, the Supreme Court’s Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) limits executive actions lacking clear statutory backing, and critics argue Trump’s broad levies may violate the non-delegation doctrine.
Article II empowers the president to negotiate treaties, but Senate ratification (Article II, Section 2) is required for binding agreements. Trump’s reliance on executive orders sidesteps this, raising questions about durability if courts or Congress intervene.
Economic Fallout
The tariffs have hit consumers hard. Retailers like Temu now charge 150% import fees, and economists estimate a $1,200 annual cost per household. Six auto industry groups warn that May 3, 2025, tariffs on foreign parts will raise car prices, disrupting supply chains. X posts reflect public anger, with users blaming Trump for “skyrocketing” grocery costs.
2. Ukraine: A War That Won’t End
Trump campaigned on ending the Russia-Ukraine war swiftly, leveraging his relationship with Vladimir Putin. A March 18, 2025, call with Putin secured a temporary halt to attacks on Ukrainian energy targets, and Saudi Arabia talks proposed a ceasefire. Yet, no lasting deal has emerged, with Trump’s April 25 claim of a “very close” agreement contradicted by Ukraine’s insistence on retaining Crimea.
A White House framework, unveiled in April, suggested recognizing Russian control over Crimea and occupied territories, a nonstarter for Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky, who cited his nation’s constitutional bar on ceding land. Trump’s March 2 Oval Office clash with Zelensky, where he accused him of “gambling with millions of lives,” underscored the impasse. European allies, including Britain’s Keir Starmer, have rallied behind Ukraine, complicating Trump’s push.
Foreign Policy Authority
Article II designates the president as commander-in-chief, granting broad foreign policy powers, but Article I gives Congress control over war declarations and funding. Trump’s unilateral ceasefire push lacks congressional approval, risking challenges under the War Powers Resolution. The Supreme Court’s Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015) affirms presidential dominance in foreign affairs, but Ukraine’s complexity—tied to NATO and European interests—limits Trump’s leverage.
The First Amendment protects Trump’s public negotiations, but his rhetoric, like calling Zelensky “ungrateful,” strains diplomatic norms. If Congress cuts Ukraine aid, as some Republicans propose, Trump’s deal-making could face further hurdles.
Global Repercussions
The war’s persistence threatens U.S. security interests. NATO’s Mark Rutte expressed trust in Trump’s diplomacy on March 13, 2025, but Ukraine’s mineral resources, eyed by Trump for a U.S. deal, remain contested. Failure to secure peace could embolden Russia and China, raising stakes for America’s global standing.
Constitutional Checks: Courts and Congress Respond
Trump’s aggressive agenda faces mounting resistance. Federal courts have blocked several executive actions, including deportations under the Alien Enemies Act and DOGE’s data access, citing Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations. A D.C. judge ruled on April 15, 2025, that DOGE’s freeze on nonprofit grants was “arbitrary and capricious,” violating Article I’s appropriations power.
House Republicans, led by Speaker Mike Johnson, are crafting a $150 billion bill to fund Trump’s defense and border priorities, set for a pre-Memorial Day vote. Yet, Democratic lawsuits over election orders and tariff impacts signal a broader constitutional fight. The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause looms if policies disproportionately harm communities.
DOGE’s Role in the Chaos
DOGE, led by Musk, has claimed $160 billion in savings but faces scrutiny for targeting progressive programs like DEI and USAID grants. Musk’s April 22 announcement to reduce DOGE involvement in May 2025 reflects legal and political heat. Article I limits DOGE’s ability to defund congressionally approved programs, and courts may further curb its reach.
Public and Political Fallout
Public skepticism is stark. A CNN poll shows 70% of those under 45 and 76% of Americans of color express economic pessimism or fear. Trump’s Macomb County rally on April 29, 2025, aimed to tout achievements, but X posts reveal frustration, with users calling tariffs “a tax on the poor.” Democrats, struggling to unify, face pressure to counter Trump’s narrative, with figures like Gretchen Whitmer navigating bipartisan talks.
The First Amendment protects public dissent, seen in April 19 protests against executive overreach. However, Trump’s base remains loyal, with 86% of Republicans approving his performance, per Fox News, complicating Democratic resistance.
Historical Echoes
Past presidents, like Franklin Roosevelt, faced similar constitutional pushback during rapid policy shifts. The Supreme Court’s Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935) struck down executive overreach, a precedent for potential tariff challenges. Trump’s first-term regrets over slow action, noted by aides, drive his current pace, but chaos from leaks and infighting mirrors 2017.
A Republic Under Pressure
Trump’s trade and Ukraine frustrations expose the republic’s constitutional guardrails. Article II’s executive powers are vast but checked by Article I’s congressional authority and Article III’s judicial review. As tariffs fuel economic strain and Ukraine tests diplomatic limits, the system’s resilience hinges on balanced powers. The coming months, with looming midterms and legal battles, will determine whether Trump’s ambitions reshape the nation or falter under constitutional weight.
