100 days that reshaped the world: what has President Trump done, and can it ever be reversed?
On 30 April, President Trump will mark his first milestone – 100 days since taking office. He enters this period with record-low approval ratings within the US, as numerous independent polls have confirmed.
However, this drop in popularity shouldn't be overestimated. Donald Trump remains the most popular politician in the US, especially within his own party. Meanwhile the opposition, still shaken by its electoral defeat, has yet to identify a charismatic leader or a clear strategy nearly six months later.
Trump, on the other hand, feels confident enough to tell journalists "I run the world".
Critics argue that in 100 days Trump has failed to deliver quick wins on any of his campaign priorities, that his actions are anti-system, and that he frequently violates both American law and the global order. Yet in reality, this anti-establishment stance is precisely what his core voters want. Most of Trump’s most controversial actions, both domestically and internationally, are exactly what he pledged to do in his election campaign.
The US president has been persistently – sometimes even literally – trying to implement what many had dismissed as mere campaign slogans. The lack of tangible results and the chaotic nature of his actions are explained away as "pushback from the system", and this explanation resonates with many of his supporters.
The bigger question, however, is the long-term impact of his policies.
In this regard, Trump certainly can’t be accused of "inaction", especially when it comes to consequences for other countries.
It is no exaggeration to say that over the past 100 days, the world has changed – and profoundly.
The priorities, policies and actions that the international community had come to expect from America are gone, and there’s little hope they’ll return.
Some of these changes are irreversible. Even if the next US president wanted to restore the pre-Trump status quo, it would be impossible. Regarding some issues, future presidents may not even want to restore it, because that old world order was at times problematic for the US. Now that Trump has cut through the Gordian knot, it would make little sense to recreate it exactly as it was before.
Unfortunately, the new world order currently being built is dangerous for Ukraine. That said, Kyiv’s influence on these processes should not be underestimated.
The suicide of the world’s policeman
For nearly half a century after the end of World War II, the global system was bipolar, with the United States and the Soviet Union as its two main players. After the USSR collapsed, neither Russia nor China assumed its former role.
After that, and despite some resistance, the world temporarily became unipolar. The United States took on the role of "global policeman": a force that could be respected or resented, partnered with or opposed, supported or challenged, but whose stance, especially on security matters, could not simply be ignored by the vast majority of nations.
On one hand, this meant that in any international conflict, direct support from the US practically guaranteed broader global backing for the same side. Countries willing to go against America understood that they’d likely end up in a small minority, if not outright isolated.
On the other hand, it placed clear limits on the global policeman itself. In order to preserve its authority and special role in the world, the US could not act arbitrarily. It had to operate within the established global order. While it was never strictly bound to uphold international law, it also could not systematically or blatantly violate it without consequences.
That era is now history.
The role of the world’s policeman is fundamentally incompatible with Trump’s actions, and not just in relation to Ukraine.
But Ukraine is a particularly revealing case.
The prohibition on changing borders by force, through acts of war, has been a cornerstone of the post-WWII international system. Departing from this principle was long seen as completely unacceptable, no matter the circumstances. Yet now the US is reportedly signalling its readiness to recognise Russia’s illegal annexation of, at the very least, Crimea, and even pressuring Ukraine to publicly accept this outcome.
A popular theory suggests that Trump is "normalising" annexation so that he can justify doing the same elsewhere, perhaps in places like Greenland. He has also issued threats towards Canada and Panama.
Another perspective is that this attack on the foundations of the global order is not rooted in strategy, but rather in the White House’s failure to grasp the consequences of its actions.
And indeed, if the law of force becomes the new global norm, the US itself will face serious fallout. Take, for example, America’s heavy reliance on chips from Taiwan. Even the new TSMC factory under construction in Arizona won’t eliminate that dependence.
It’s no secret that China openly wants to reclaim Taiwan. If military annexation becomes normalised, that ambition will only be easier for Beijing to pursue.
Not just a new US president – a new reality
Whatever the motives behind Trump’s actions, it is crucial to understand that in just one hundred days of his presidency, the world has already passed several points of no return.
And this isn’t just about the US losing its special global role. In fact, that loss is not a problem for Trump at all. He said as much when campaigning, insisting that America had to stop solving global problems and focus on its own. Major cuts announced for the Department of State, the US stepping back from global discussions, distancing itself from G7 decisions, even voting several times alongside countries considered part of the global "axis of evil" – all of this confirms the White House’s intentions.
The problem is that these actions have global consequences.
Most notably, rhetoric in support of annexation has become the new normal.
Until recently, any public declaration by a state leader of plans to seize foreign territory by force would have triggered international condemnation. Now such statements are being routinely issued by the president of the world’s largest economy.
And what matters here is not just what is being said in Washington, but the reaction (or lack of one) from other world powers. Even EU leaders have failed to give a proper response to Trump’s unacceptable comments about Denmark, an EU member.
Europe’s caution is understandable. Aware of the new US president’s emotional volatility, and of their own dependence on US cooperation in the security sphere, European politicians have sought to avoid confrontation with the White House.
But their silence has had side effects.
Now, any world leader might feel emboldened to publicly discuss annexing a neighbouring territory. After all, if the US can do it, why shouldn’t anyone else?
Even the election of the next American president may not undo the damage. In essence, Trump’s "normalisation" of these actions has involved passive complicity from all other Western leaders. His statements have not even sparked discussion or condemnation in the UN Security Council.
So far, the White House has not crossed the final red line: the official recognition of Crimea as part of Russia. But based on Trump’s rhetoric, this possibility cannot be ruled out. If it happens, the reaction of America’s European allies will determine the depth of the change the world is facing, and whether these shifts can be reversed after a change in US leadership.
However, the annexation story is only part of the picture. The changes underway are much broader.
Trump is openly hostile to the international legal order as a whole.
And that hostility is nothing new.
"I run the world, but with no obligations"
Ahead of his 100-day milestone, Donald Trump gave interviews to several media outlets that are generally critical of him, including the highly-regarded Atlantic, which endorsed Kamala Harris during the election and warned readers that a second Trump term would be far more dangerous than the first.
In that interview, Trump admitted he sees his role quite differently this time around. "The first time [in office], I had two things to do – run the country and survive; I had all these crooked guys," he said, disparaging his previous team.
"And the second time, I run the country and the world,"
Trump added.
This may sound contradictory: if Trump wants to lead the world, why is he rejecting the very tools and norms that have given the US its global authority and influence?
The answer becomes clear when you examine his attitude to different international instruments. Those that set rules, impose limits, and create accountability, Trump rejects outright.
Some of these he openly aims to destroy. And he's not alone in that ambition.
The United States – a global power without accountability
The United States is the only G7 nation, and the only Western country besides Israel, that does not participate in the work of the International Criminal Court (ICC). While Democratic presidents have traditionally taken a more lenient view of the ICC than Republicans, Washington has never expressed a desire to be held accountable under international criminal law.
So Trump’s open battle with the ICC is unlikely to provoke criticism from his presidential successor, especially after the Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli politicians Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant.
In contrast, the US holds a fundamentally different attitude toward the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
The reason for this difference is simple.
The ICJ is the principal court of the international legal system and is also based in The Hague. But unlike the ICC, it poses no direct threat to Trump or his allies, because the White House has a veto over the enforcement of any ICJ ruling. This authority stems from the US’s status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
More importantly, these "superpowers" do not place any obligations on Trump.
And that is a crucial distinction, especially compared to the role of global policeman, which does not only enhance a US president’s stature, but also imposes responsibilities and constraints. That’s precisely why Trump finds the role unappealing.
Trump is convinced he alone runs the world and views any restrictions or international mechanisms he doesn’t control as unacceptable. This mindset explains his desire to dismantle the World Health Organisation and other UN institutions where the US has no veto but whose decisions it is still bound by. And in this particular battle, he may very well succeed.
Let’s return to the UN and the unique role the US plays in it.
Trump has never held back from criticising the UN, either now or on the campaign trail, but nor has he done anything to undermine the US’s membership. Foreign policy experts are confident that he never will: despite his combative rhetoric, the US will not agree even to deep reform of the UN, let alone its dissolution.
Why? For the same reason described above: the US already has broad authority in the UN, but faces no real constraints.
This version of the "world order" suits Trump perfectly. The fact that it doesn’t work well for the rest of the world – well, that was never the point.
Breaking alliances and the erosion of US influence
"What I’m doing is exactly what I’ve campaigned on," Trump told Time in an interview last week. "Which is true, in part," the magazine commented.
Indeed, many of Trump’s controversial actions in his first 100 days weren't entirely unexpected. While his campaign pledges mostly related to domestic or economic issues, his foreign policy is following a similar disruptive path.
Trump’s agenda – undermining the global order, pressuring Ukraine into peace with its aggressor, dismantling international institutions, reducing America’s global presence – is nothing new. But the extent of the damage done to the US’s alliances has exceeded all predictions.
Trump had promised trade disputes with major partners, especially Canada, but few foresaw his public humiliation of the US’s neighbour, calling it the "51st US state" and mocking Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as a "governor".
The same applies to Europe. Trump has even threatened to seize Greenland from Denmark, ignoring the fact that alliance commitments can’t be selective.
NATO’s future is now uncertain.
The Trump administration walks the line: formally reaffirming commitment, but setting impossible demands and keeping the threat of withdrawal alive. Behind closed doors, preparations for a potential US exit from NATO, or at least its military structure, are underway. This could happen as early as this year.
Officially, nothing irreversible has happened. Washington could still backtrack and restore trust. But there's no sign Trump plans to do so. More likely, Europe faces three and a half more years of toxic, unstable relations with the US.
And it's not just European governments who are watching.
One of the clearest outcomes of Trump’s first 100 days is a global loss of trust in the US.
It hasn’t caused immediate damage, but trust is a long-term asset. Its erosion could hit the US in diplomacy, alliances, trade and investment – possibly sooner than expected.
The chaos economy: is the dollar losing its dominance?
In the Time interview marking his first 100 days, Donald Trump admitted his views on law differ from those of previous US presidents. Asked whether he agreed with John Adams’ idea that America is "a government of laws, not of men", Trump replied: "I wouldn’t agree with it 100%. We are a government where men are involved in the process of law, and ideally, you’re going to have honest men like me."
This disregard for legal norms is evident in his administration. Trump has set a record for the number of government actions that have been challenged in court – on immigration, civil rights, free speech and more, often losing and then ignoring court rulings.
His talk of "honesty" is also questionable. One vivid example is his decision to impose tariffs on all US trading partners, which he framed as "America’s liberation day".
While tackling the trade deficit is a legitimate goal,
Trump’s rationale was based on false claims.
He said the tariffs were "reciprocal", but in fact, they were calculated using a distorted formula and targeted even countries with low or no tariffs on US goods.
The policy has resulted in chaos, sparking market turmoil, retaliation from other countries, and protests from US businesses. The tariffs have been paused, and it remains unclear if or when they’ll be fully implemented. International trade with the US has become a risky gamble.
Meanwhile, the dollar lost 10% of its value in those first 100 days. If the trade war escalates, further depreciation seems likely.
It remains uncertain what direction the US economy will take under Trump. What is clear is that change is underway, and more surprises – likely unpleasant ones – lie ahead.
Sergiy Sydorenko
Editor, European Pravda