GuShiio.com 
Thank you very much for listening to me analyze some topics related to the newly elected US President Donald Trump on Wednesday night.
Tonight’s sharing is mainly divided into three parts:
In the first part, I will talk about the series of warm-up actions that Trump has taken in the past two months to officially take office, and what is special about the presidential inauguration ceremony on January 20;
In the second part, I will analyze the rhetoric in Trump’s inaugural speech and the issues he focused on;
In the third part, I will also analyze some key policies of the new government in its early days.
01-Long “warm-up” and ceremony process
First, let’s go to the first part. Although Trump theoretically took office on January 20, his presence has been strong enough in the past two months. In this part, I will unfold it along two lines for you, one line is diplomacy, and the other line is US domestic affairs.
First of all, diplomacy. Trump had already “overstepped his authority” two months in advance. For example, after Trump was elected last year, he immediately nominated a Middle East affairs adviser, Witkoff. Since November last year, this person has actually participated in many important diplomatic negotiations in the Middle East, such as the ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. On January 17, the Israeli cabinet officially announced a ceasefire agreement with the Palestinian Hamas organization. Witkov was also directly involved in the conclusion of this agreement.
But theoretically, Trump has not yet taken office, so how can the envoy he nominated start working? Moreover, not only did the diplomatic representatives of Israel and Hamas admit this, but even the Biden administration’s Middle East envoy accepted it. Therefore, a relatively rare scene in American political history has emerged: the Biden administration’s Middle East envoy and the Trump-nominated Middle East envoy, who theoretically has not yet been formally authorized, are in Qatar together, negotiating with Israeli and Hamas officials.
According to the New York Times, Witkov called Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu directly in the negotiation room with a very tough attitude, warning that if Israel does not agree to a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, it will bear the consequences. The same tone was used on Hamas representatives. It can be said that Witkoff is not only Trump’s spokesperson, but also seems to have more persuasive voice than the Biden administration’s special envoy for Middle East affairs in the entire diplomatic negotiations.
Not only about the Middle East issue, Trump has repeatedly shouted to Putin since his election. Two weeks ago, Trump’s team revealed that they had a telephone call with Putin to discuss the prospects of the Russian-Ukrainian war. Putin also expressed his willingness to engage with Ukraine, which is obviously a face-saving move for the incoming Trump.
Of course, there are not only Trump’s plans to declare his presence and personal ability at the diplomatic level, but also some diplomatic threats. For example, Trump threatened to impose a 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico immediately after taking office, and he also made a similar statement on Chinese goods.
In addition to these, Trump has also released some strange diplomatic signals since December last year. For example, he claimed that the United States should acquire Greenland, an autonomous region of Denmark, and the Panama Canal, which he has frequently mentioned recently, and even said that Canada should join the United States and become “the 51st state of the United States.” These statements, which sound reliable or unreliable, have attracted a wave of attention.
In addition to the diplomatic level, Trump’s presence in domestic affairs is also very strong. For example, between December 19 and 21 last year, the US government once faced a budget crisis of a partial shutdown of the federal government because Trump incited Republican lawmakers in Congress to try to write a clause to cancel the US government debt ceiling into the temporary appropriations bill.
Not only that, Trump also said that once he took office, he would repeal all executive bills signed by Biden during his tenure. The TikTok ban mentioned in the “Global Events Report” column updated on Monday this week also has something to do with Trump. After the TikTok ban came into effect on the 19th, it was suspended for less than 14 hours before another notice was issued saying that it had resumed operations under Trump’s “coordination and help.” Judging from these warm-up actions, Trump is indeed the president-elect with the strongest presence in American history.
So what is the sign of reaching the peak in his warm-up performance? It is cryptocurrency. On January 17, Trump announced the issuance of a cryptocurrency named after himself, and his current wife Melania also announced the issuance of a cryptocurrency named after her on the 19th. The market value of these two cryptocurrencies fluctuated greatly after they were launched, and also caused a lot of topics.
I personally think that this cryptocurrency is essentially more like a commemorative coin, or a special electronic souvenir. It is neither based on legal currency reserves (national credit) like legal currency, nor based on a limited total amount and computing power like Bitcoin. The cryptocurrency issued by Trump is theoretically not linked to anything, so what is it based on? It is Trump’s personal influence and the degree of support for him by his fans.
But everyone knows that commemorative coins can also appreciate. Under what circumstances can they appreciate? Everyone may not realize that this is the most useful in political campaign donations. Everyone also knows that in the 2024 US election, entrepreneurs represented by Musk donated a large amount of political donations to the Trump camp. The way Trump’s camp uses political donations is: Musk established a super action committee, and the donations of enterprises are directly aggregated into the action committee. The action committee is directly linked to Trump himself, not to the Republican National Convention.
On the other hand, the cryptocurrency issued by Trump also has such characteristics. It is directly linked to Trump’s name and influence. Imagine that the United States will hold mid-term elections in 2026, including in 2028. Although Trump himself cannot be re-elected, the United States still has a presidential election. In this case, if Trump has a product that is highly bound to him and has investment attributes, what can he do immediately?
For example, if Trump supports a congressman, he can give his influence or credit endorsement to the congressman candidate or even the presidential candidate in the form of cryptocurrency. How can the candidate cash this thing? Trump’s fans will buy this cryptocurrency. In this way, Trump can be said to have created a very unique model, bypassing all the previous models of political donations and use in the American political arena.
After more than two months of warm-up, he added so much drama to himself in the last three days; on January 20, Trump’s inauguration ceremony officially began. This year’s US presidential inauguration ceremony has a feature: it is held indoors. Because the East Coast of the United States and the capital Washington encountered a cold front, this was the coldest presidential inauguration ceremony in the United States in nearly 40 years, so the ceremony was held indoors in the Capitol.
Let’s take a look at the guests invited by Trump and the people who actually attended. First of all, Trump did not invite the leaders of traditional allies of the United States, whether it was neighboring Canada or European allies, but he invited some representatives of countries that he personally valued or had a lot of personal interactions with him for a long time. For example, Argentine President Mille, Italian Prime Minister Meroni, and former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who was once called “British Trump”. In addition, there are Nigel Farage, leader of the British Reform Party, and Krupala, co-leader of the German Alternative Party. These people either had a lot of interactions with Trump himself before, or they were people who Trump thought were more in line with his political ideas and slogans.
In addition to the political world, let’s take a look at which representatives were invited from the business world. First of all, Musk’s presence must be full. Among the more than 750 guests at the presidential inauguration ceremony, Musk sat in the first row, with a full sense of presence. I actually told you in my column on Monday that this time, the representatives of the traditional establishment in Silicon Valley collectively showed goodwill to Trump. Apple’s Cook, Amazon’s Bezos, Meta’s Zuckerberg, Google’s Pichai, and Google co-founder Sergey Brin were all present.
There was also the focus figure, TikTok CEO Zhou Shouzi, plus LVMH founder Arnold, who came from France specifically – he is the second richest man in the world after Musk. “Bloomberg Businessweek” calculated that the business representatives who attended Trump’s inauguration ceremony had a combined net worth of about $1.3 trillion, which is a very impressive figure.
After talking about the people who attended the inauguration ceremony, let’s take a look at Trump’s entire inauguration process. First of all, the speech at the inauguration ceremony. It has to be said that Trump’s schedule on January 20 was very performative. After he finished his speech, under the attention of supporters and the media, he did the same thing in two batches: First, in a large gymnasium, he signed dozens of executive orders and memoranda in succession, and then threw his signature pen to the audience and gave it to his supporters. After returning to the Oval Office, he continued to sign the remaining executive orders and memoranda under the close attention of the media.
For comparison, when Trump first took office in 2017, he only signed 14 executive orders. But on the first day of his return to the White House, he signed nearly 100 executive orders and memoranda, including the abolition of 78 policies implemented by executive orders during Biden’s tenure, and Trump himself issued more than 40 new executive orders. After this series of signings, Trump announced that evening that he had pardoned more than 1,500 people involved in the “Capitol Hill Riots” on January 6, 2021. The specific content of these more than 40 decrees will be discussed in the third part today.
On the evening of January 20, after the entire ceremony, Trump specifically mentioned to the media that he was considering imposing a 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico from February 1. On January 21, the second day of the ceremony, Trump first met with the foreign ministers of Japan, Australia and India, and then told the media that he was also considering imposing a 25% tariff on Chinese goods from February 1.
On January 21, Trump also attended a signing ceremony with SoftBank President Masayoshi Son, OpenAI CEO Altman and Oracle founder Ellison. SoftBank, OpenAI and Oracle jointly announced the launch of a $100 billion artificial intelligence investment plan (Note: the project codename is “Stargate”, and it is expected that the fundraising will reach $500 billion before 2029). Trump came to support their new investment plan. At the same time, during the day on January 22, local time in the United States, Trump will also attend this year’s Davos World Economic Forum via video link, and he may also express more opinions on global economic and industrial policies.
02-Analysis of the rhetoric of the inaugural address
Just now, I reviewed with you some of Trump’s actions and some activities on the day of the ceremony during the warm-up period of about two months before his official inauguration. Next, in the second part of today, I will give you a rhetoric analysis of Trump’s inaugural address.
First of all, I don’t know if you have seen some of the more representative inaugural addresses of American presidents. I summarized it myself. The more traditional inaugural addresses of American presidents have the following characteristics: First of all, the words are relatively grand and abstract, and they will talk about a lot of visions. If they take office in difficult times or when the United States faces major tests, such as Roosevelt who took office during the Great Depression, or Obama who took office during the 2009 financial crisis, they usually admit that the United States is currently facing major tests and challenges, but few people will push the responsibility of these major tests, challenges and difficulties to their predecessors.
In addition, there are many parallel sentences in typical American political speeches, which are characterized by creating a sense of grandeur and solemnity. In addition, although each president represents a certain political party, in his inaugural address, he usually does not emphasize that he is a member of a certain party, but emphasizes that he is “the president of all Americans.” When Trump first took office as president in 2017, his inaugural address caused some controversy at the time, but overall he still followed the routes I just summarized.
However, when Trump returns to the White House in 2025, the tone and characteristics of this speech are very different from the previous inaugural speeches of American presidents. First of all, his words are more intense. Although he said at the beginning that “the golden age of the United States will come again”, he immediately began to attack the Biden administration after the opening, describing the social, political and economic conditions of the United States in the past few years as a mess. Although he did not mention Biden’s name, he directly accused the Biden administration.
After severely criticizing Biden, Trump changed his tone and began to exaggerate that his life in the past eight years was not easy. Including the attacks from the so-called “deep government” during his first term as president in the White House, and the series of legal lawsuits he faced after losing the election in 2020. In addition, he specifically mentioned that he had been stabbed and injured during the 2024 presidential election. But he changed the subject and began to praise himself, saying that he had always maintained his fighting spirit during the eight years of ups and downs, and now he has finally returned to the White House.
Then, Trump began to express his gratitude to his fans and supporters. Generally speaking, a new president will not deliberately emphasize a certain group or party when he takes office, but Trump’s speech is very different. He thanked many black and Hispanic voters, saying that these groups cast a key vote for him in the 2024 election, allowing him to win the election, and he wanted to express extra gratitude to these groups. This is actually through this set of rhetoric to bind himself with supporters and provide fans with some emotional value.
In the past, presidential speeches usually used parallel sentences to emphasize everyone’s perseverance. Few new presidents mentioned in their inaugural speeches that they would implement any particularly specific policies. But in his inaugural speech, Trump also reiterated some of his promises made during the election campaign, which gave his inauguration ceremony a “live broadcast feeling.”
It means: I will sign these executive orders and implement these policies as soon as I finish this speech. This statement makes his fans and supporters feel immersed all of a sudden. In fact, after he finished his inaugural speech, he immediately went to the stadium and began to issue administrative documents in front of his supporters. This sense of immersion and live broadcast is a major feature of Trump’s speech.
And the promises and executive orders he made were also repeatedly exaggerated and preheated during the election campaign. For example, on the issue of immigration, he said that he would immediately declare a state of emergency on the southern border and strictly control illegal immigration. When it comes to the inflation issue that American voters have been particularly concerned about in the past few years, he said that shale oil and gas drilling in the United States will be liberalized immediately to bring down oil prices. Voters are concerned about the return of manufacturing and the increase in jobs, so he said that the “Green New Deal” during the Biden administration should be revoked, and the mandatory requirement that 56% of new cars must be pure electric or hybrid vehicles should be canceled, so that everyone can freely buy American domestic fuel vehicles to “recover blood” from the fuel vehicle industry. In addition, he also emphasized that tariff policies will make Americans richer.
Of course, more important are social and cultural policies. For example, Trump also listed what policies he would issue, such as freedom of speech, gender issues in the United States, and racial issues. It can be said that this kind of live broadcast is a reiteration of the promises he made during the election campaign.
But then, he made some promises that I personally find very strange. For example, Trump said that in order to inspire “the world’s
He called for the Gulf of Mexico to be renamed the “American Gulf”. He also proposed to restore the original name of the highest mountain in the United States, Mount Denali, to “Mount McKinley”.
In addition, Mount McKinley is located in Alaska. At the end of the 19th century, gold diggers in Alaska named the mountain after President McKinley, and later it was commonly called Mount McKinley. But during the Obama administration, Obama believed that it should be called according to the name of the Alaskan natives, so it was changed back to “Mount Denali”, but Trump announced that it would be restored to “Mount McKinley”.
The naming of Mount McKinley is actually worth pondering. Because during the presidential election, Trump repeatedly mentioned McKinley, the famous president of the “Gilded Age” in the United States in the late 19th century, saying that this was the most outstanding president in his mind. Let’s take a look at what McKinley did: First, McKinley implemented the heaviest tariff policy in American history from the late 19th century to the early 20th century, especially Trump particularly admired him for this. Secondly, McKinley had a good relationship with some large American companies at that time. His economic policy was very lenient to large companies, while reducing taxes for ordinary Americans.
In addition, McKinley also led the United States to expand its territory in the late 19th century, including preparations for the annexation of Hawaii, the annexation of Cuba and the Philippines during the Spanish-American War, and taking over the Panama Canal project from France, prompting Panama to become independent from Colombia, and purchasing the right to operate the Panama Canal and the right to use the land on both sides, all of which were completed during McKinley’s tenure.
From Trump’s restoration of the name of “McKinley Mountain”, it can be seen that McKinley is, to a certain extent, Trump’s target and idol as president. And from McKinley’s policies, it is natural to understand why Trump said that the United States should resume the trend of “continued territorial expansion” in the late 19th century, including his proposal to take back the Panama Canal and even the United States landing on Mars.
At this point, I have roughly analyzed the main differences between Trump’s inaugural address and the previous inaugural addresses of American presidents. Next, I will analyze it in detail.
First, some policies or promises have no actual policy significance, but are just for propaganda purposes. For example, renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the “American Gulf” is nothing more than issuing an executive order, but it has no policy significance, and there is no question of punishing or fining anyone who fails to implement it. There is also the issue of renaming “Mount McKinley”. These two name changes have no policy significance, only propaganda effects.
In addition, there are some topics that sound very bluffing, such as taking back the Panama Canal and acquiring Greenland. But whether they can actually be implemented into specific policies is worth analyzing.
Let’s talk about the Panama Canal first. Let’s not talk about Trump’s unwarranted claim that the United States has made a great “contribution” to the construction of the Panama Canal and the independence of Panama, which is completely a colonial discourse. The key point is that after Panama took back the canal from the United States, in fact, in the past decade or so, Panama has used its own financial strength to expand the canal’s waterway capacity on a large scale, dig and operate new waterways. The manpower and material resources used in this process were all borne by Panama itself, which has nothing to do with the United States.
Secondly, Trump’s claim that the Panama Canal is “controlled by China” is even more of a slander. Panama and the People’s Republic of China formally established diplomatic relations in 2017. So, what is the matter with Trump’s claim that “the Panama Canal is controlled by China”? In fact, it is a subsidiary of Hutchison Whampoa Group under Li Ka-shing that has the operating rights of the ports at both ends of the Panama Canal. But this operating right was obtained more than 20 years ago, earlier than the time when Panama established diplomatic relations with China. It can be seen that Trump’s accusation is completely unfounded. As for his claim that the Panama Canal imposes higher transit fees on the United States, this statement has also been denied by the Panamanian government.
Let’s talk about the Greenland issue. I personally think that this is also a matter of propaganda effect greater than actual policy significance. Why? The current head of Greenland’s administration has made it clear that he is very satisfied with the status quo and does not want to become an American citizen. In fact, Trump first proposed to buy Greenland in 2019, but was rejected by the Danish government at the time. Now it seems that Greenland’s own autonomous administration is not interested in this matter either.
So since these have no policy significance, why do we still mention them? My personal judgment is that first of all, like the Panama Canal, Trump may hope to get additional discounts for American ships on the tonnage fee issue of the canal, or to get some discounts for American companies when the franchise rights of ports and related infrastructure on both sides of the Panama Canal are re-tendered next time.
The same is true for the Greenland issue. You may think that Trump is targeting Greenland because it is a new target. In fact, there are now US military bases on Greenland. During the Cold War, there was a military term called the “GIUK blockade line”, G stands for Greenland, I stands for Iceland, and UK stands for the United Kingdom. This blockade line was the only way for Soviet nuclear submarines to advance towards the United States during the Cold War. Therefore, the United States has had a small-scale military deployment in Greenland since the Cold War.
In addition, people who have recently paid attention to the topic of Greenland may say that Greenland has some rare earth minerals, natural gas and oil resources. But the question is, if these resources are indeed scarce and the cost of mining is low, why doesn’t Denmark mine them itself, and why don’t other global investors mine them? In essence, it is because it is very costly and difficult to mine these resources in Greenland, and it is not cost-effective.
So, whether it is Greenland or Panama, it is essentially a gimmick first, and secondly, it is difficult to implement in terms of policy, but they may help American companies and the US government to obtain some small conveniences and benefits. This is the first category, which does not have much policy significance, but has a good propaganda effect.
The second category is some policies that sound like a reversal of direction and a change of course, but in fact the Biden administration has been moving in this direction for a long time. A typical example is Trump’s statement that shale oil and gas production should be increased. But in fact, during the Biden administration, except for certain areas in certain states where shale oil and gas extraction is restricted by environmental protection policies, shale oil and gas production in the entire United States has reached a historical peak. In other words, the Biden administration as a whole has a laissez-faire and supportive attitude towards this industry.
For example, Trump said he would abolish the “Green New Deal” and revoke the decree on the proportion of electric vehicle sales. But the problem is that the “Green New Deal” he mentioned, that is, the United States must ensure that new cars sold within a certain period of time have zero carbon emissions, this bill has only been discussed in Congress, and has not been voted on or implemented. In other words, Trump is hitting a non-existent target. For another example, supporting the US manufacturing industry and promoting the return of high-tech-related manufacturing to the United States, the Biden administration has been doing this in the past few years, but it has not been publicized.
The third category is that some social policies cannot be maintained for a long time or cannot be implemented once and for all in the form of presidential executive orders. For example, Trump said he would crack down on illegal immigrants and declared a state of emergency on the southern border. So why can’t the search for illegal immigrants be maintained for a long time? The main reason is that the fiscal cost is too high. If you want to maintain a border emergency at the southern border of the United States, whether it is to deploy the army or the National Guard of each state, the financial cost is very high. You may be able to do it for a few months, but it is impossible to maintain it for a long time.
There are also some presidential executive orders that cannot be maintained for a long time. The most typical one is that Trump said that he would question the scope of application of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution stipulates that all babies born on US territory will automatically become US citizens, which is essentially a birthright law. Trump wants to use presidential executive orders to refuse to issue passports to newborns whose parents are neither US citizens nor permanent residents.
But the problem is that presidential executive orders can take effect immediately and do not need to be passed by Congress, but presidential executive orders will be subject to another kind of review. What review? Judicial review. And from past records, when presidential executive orders are subject to judicial prosecution, the government has a high probability of losing the case. I checked and found that during Trump’s first term as president, the policies implemented through presidential executive orders were subject to 246 judicial prosecutions, of which only 54 times the government won and more than 190 lost. This proves that policies implemented through presidential executive orders often lack long-term sustainability.
Moreover, even if they are not overturned, many of Trump’s executive orders are unlikely to take effect immediately. For example, according to the WHO Charter, any country that applies for withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) must go through a transition period of more than a year before it can really take effect. Trump said he would withdraw in January 2025, but in fact it will not be implemented until 2026. This is also a statement that cannot produce real effect in the short term.
In addition to these, the fourth is that policies that really require the new government to bear considerable costs or may affect the president’s credibility were not mentioned in Trump’s inaugural address. For example, during the election campaign, Trump repeatedly said that he would end the Russia-Ukraine war within 24 hours. But in fact, in the past one or two months of remote dialogue with Putin, the information revealed by the Trump team was that they planned to formulate a 100-day timetable to facilitate the dialogue and armistice framework between Russia and Ukraine. But in his inaugural speech on January 20, he did not mention the Russia-Ukraine war at all.
Another example is the situation in the Middle East. Now the first phase of the ceasefire has been reached, but what if the next phase of a more comprehensive hostage exchange and a formal peace agreement between Israel and Palestine cannot be negotiated? Trump did not say anything. He also did not mention the diplomatic differences between Israel and Saudi Arabia, another major ally of the United States. Because if these promises cannot be fulfilled, it will really have an impact on his credibility.
There are also specific details of the tariff war. Trump previously said that he would impose tariffs on Mexico and Canada on the first day of his presidency, and finally impose tariffs on China. But in fact, he only revealed a time point of February 1 on the evening of January 20, but did not specify whether the presidential executive order was signed on February 1 to start imposing tariffs; or whether the executive order took effect on February 1. He did not give an exact timetable, nor did he explain how the policy would be promoted, and even left enough room for maneuver.
This is actually also a vague strategy. Trump actually took a step back, hoping that through this attractive rhetoric, he would increase his own attention and enhance voters’ trust in him. This is a strategy he often uses. Think about it carefully. When Trump first took office in 2017, he mentioned building a wall on the US-Mexico border every day. But in 2025, why did he no longer mention this policy that he had been talking about eight years ago? Because this topic is no longer fresh. He needs to create some freshness to attract attention and win over potential supporters.
Therefore, reflected in the inaugural address, on the one hand, the topic is full of incitement and explosiveness, but on the other hand, the implementation of specific policies is a bit evasive.
03-Overall analysis of policies in the early days of taking office
Next, let’s take a look at what Trump’s policy priorities might be in the early days of taking office?
First of all, the tone of the tariff war is so high because Trump hopes to get feedback and response. Why? In theory, Trump can directly declare a “national emergency” on the first day of taking office, and sign an executive order on the grounds of emergency to directly impose tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods. Trump even thought of the reasons for the state of emergency, such as Canada and Mexico importing illegal drugs fentanyl and illegal immigrants into the United States. Of course, regardless of whether this reason is valid or not, in theory, Trump has the right to declare a state of emergency and immediately impose tariffs.
However, in the document he issued on January 20, there was no executive order to immediately impose new tariffs. Instead, he issued a vague memorandum requiring the Department of Commerce to “review unfair trade practices.” Even the day before he was sworn in on January 19, Trump said in an interview that the United States “is not ready for comprehensive tariffs.” But Trump repeatedly emphasized that don’t think that if there is no tariff increase on the first day, the matter will be over. He is not kidding.
This is actually using some vague dates to create a sense of tension and use uncertainty to strengthen his deterrence. Before Trump entered politics, he particularly liked to talk about the so-called “art of the deal”, which is a manifestation of his characteristics. However, The Economist and Bloomberg Businessweek believe that the reason why Trump continues to strengthen his deterrence but does not implement the new tariff policy is because there are some differences of opinion in Trump’s team.
For example, Trump’s new Treasury Secretary, Benson, believes that tariffs can be imposed, but only on specific industries with very narrow categories, such as steel and car batteries; and other ordinary commodities, especially fruits and vegetables imported from Mexico to the United States, which are related to daily life, he believes that tariffs should not be imposed. Of course, there are also some hardline tariff factions in Trump’s team who believe that tariffs should be imposed immediately. Therefore, the internal opinions of the Trump camp have not yet reached a consensus.
Another situation is that the advantage of the presidential executive order is that tariffs can be imposed immediately, but the disadvantage is that the tax increase is usually not particularly high, generally not more than 25%. But if Trump wants to further increase the proportion of punitive tariffs, he’d better reach a consensus with Congress.
The last temporary appropriation bill passed by the US government will expire in March; for government appropriations and the official budget for the new fiscal year, Congress will have to have new discussions. If the tariff issue and the budget are bundled together, Trump can get more policy space and more benefits. Because, obviously, both parties in Congress do not want the government to be on the verge of shutdown again because of budget issues.
In this case, Trump can propose to bundle tariffs with the budget. He may propose to expand the scope of punitive tariffs on specific countries or specific types and increase the proportion. In this way, tariffs become a strategy of killing two birds with one stone. Not only can his goal of increasing tariffs be achieved, but he can also gain an extra advantage in fiscal budget issues.
There are less than two months from now to mid-March, and this more than one month is his “tariff transaction preparation period.” Now the cards are out, telling you that tariffs will be imposed, but not immediately, leaving more than a month, less than two months, for you to come to him to talk. Including Trump himself released through the Wall Street Journal that he hopes to visit the People’s Republic of China within 100 days after taking office to discuss many major topics in the form of head of state diplomacy, including tariffs.
On the other hand, even if Trump does not delay until March, he really makes the new punitive tariffs take effect on February 1 according to the current statement, which is essentially to force Mexico, Canada, including China, to hope to obtain the other party’s commitment to buy more American goods. If this kind of trade negotiation achieves certain results, the punitive tariffs previously initiated by the presidential executive order can also be cancelled at any time. In other words, although the tone of the tariff war is still high, the main hope is to get feedback and response.
The second policy focus is foreign policy. Strangely, Trump did not make any clear commitments on foreign policy in his inaugural address. I think a very important reason is that by January 20, the inauguration day, in addition to the formal approval of the nomination resolution of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, some other important officials selected by Trump related to US diplomacy and defense issues, such as Secretary of Defense Hegseth and Director of National Intelligence Gabbard, although their nomination hearing procedures have begun, there are some differences within the US Senate, and so far they have not entered the formal voting state.
In other words, it is impossible to formulate a truly systematic and feasible foreign policy with only the Secretary of State. Now we have to wait a few more days for the Senate hearing process to be completed. Don’t forget that before the election, Trump said that he would let Musk help him with government layoffs. But the problem is that government layoffs and mergers of government departments will also cause a problem: the nomination process for the highest head of the department has not been passed, and now a group of people who are actually doing the work have been laid off. Then the operation of this government department, especially the policy advisory department, may have problems. In this case, it is actually very difficult to make foreign policy commitments.
Of course, The Economist magazine also made an estimate in the special cover of Trump’s return to the White House last week. This estimate is consistent with my own long-term judgment, that is: In general, whether it is a strategic competitor or a potential ally in his mind, Trump’s consistent strategy is to put pressure first to see what benefits can be squeezed out. Including NATO allies, Trump’s attitude is also to put pressure on you, asking you to increase your defense budget and not to expect the United States to protect you. For potential competitors, pressure should be put on them even more.
But if the pressure does not make ideal progress, and Trump predicts that there are some issues that do not involve the core interests of the United States and cannot obtain rich diplomatic returns, such as the Russia-Ukraine issue and the Middle East issue, then he may gradually give up or stay away and let you coordinate on your own. This is my general view of Trump’s foreign policy.
The third point is why Trump spent so much time talking about the border in his inaugural speech.
And immigration policy? Because these two things, after all, are not only easy to promise, but also easy to implement. Because the number of illegal immigrants entering the United States can be expressed in statistics, and he can even put pressure on the Mexican government in this way. Therefore, border and immigration policies are not only easy to quantify, but also can share the costs.
In addition, Trump cracked down on a round of illegal immigrants and border crossers during his first term as president, and he is very experienced in this regard. Therefore, using border policy and immigration issues as a cut to fulfill his promises during the election campaign is a particularly cost-effective strategy for Trump.
On the other hand, what is one thing he did not mention at all in his inaugural address? Tax cuts. After all, the tax cut bill passed during his first term as president will expire in 2025. If no new tax cut bill is introduced after the expiration of the terms, many of the previous tax reduction policies will rebound to the state before 2017. The American people may be dissatisfied with Trump.
So when will the tax cut issue be raised? In fact, it is very particular for Trump. My personal judgment is that it may be in June or July. Because I said before, by mid-March, the temporary government appropriations bill passed in December last year may expire. A very important point of contention in the new fiscal budget is that the US debt ceiling has actually been breached. So around the debt ceiling issue, there may be a lot of debate and contradictions in Congress.
But the United States stipulates that if the formal fiscal budget or even the temporary budget cannot be passed, the various government agencies can use cash reserves to maintain normal operations until the cash reserves are exhausted. In theory, when will it be exhausted? It will be around June. It is more beneficial for Trump to discuss tax cuts together with issues such as breaking the fiscal ceiling.
As I said before, bundling the fiscal budget issue with the tariff bill can allow Trump to kill two birds with one stone. The issue of tax cuts may also be bundled with Trump’s other issues and be heard in Congress. Therefore, although tax cuts are very important, they will not be an issue that Trump will raise on the first day or the first month.
Finally, in addition to these specific policies, I think there is one thing that is also worth paying attention to, that is, the relationship between Trump and Congress. You may ask, didn’t Trump and the Republicans win control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, plus the presidency? Is there any conflict between the president and Congress? There are two main points: First, the Republicans’ seat advantage in the House of Representatives is actually very small. Originally, the Republicans won 220 seats out of 435 seats in the House of Representatives, which means that they only have a 5-seat advantage.
Now there is also a situation that Trump has nominated some current members of the House of Representatives to serve as his cabinet ministerial officials. Ministerial officials are administrative positions and cannot be concurrently held with the legislative positions of members of the House of Representatives. They have to resign and have to be re-elected in the future.
Currently, two of the members nominated by Trump have resigned. Now the Republicans only have 218 seats in the entire House of Representatives, and it may even decrease further, and the 5-seat advantage will not be enough. What will this cause? If someone is particularly stubborn or difficult to compromise on a certain issue, then the policies that Trump wants to promote may go wrong because the Republicans’ advantage is not big enough and there are some internal differences.
Moreover, I also found a very interesting phenomenon. There are 220 Republican congressmen in total, of which only 70 were elected before Trump’s first presidency in 2017, which means that there are still 150 political newcomers. This is very different from the Senate, where more than half of the Republican members have more senior political experience than Trump. But the House of Representatives is different. They were able to be elected to the House of Representatives to a certain extent because they joined Trump’s camp and stood out.
But you have to pay attention to this phenomenon: precisely because they are not experienced in politics, they can seek longer-term political development. Trump can only be president for four years, and he cannot be re-elected; but many of these 2/3 of the Republican congressmen still want to seek a longer political career. They have to consider: I became a congressman by being tied to Trump; but if I continue to be deeply tied to Trump and follow his baton, will it affect my future political career? They have to think about it.
Moreover, there are some “very deadly” factions among the Republican congressmen, such as extreme fiscal conservatives. During the budget crisis of the US government in December last year, more than 30 Republicans did not listen to Trump. Trump said that he wanted to tie the debt ceiling issue to the new appropriation bill; but these people said no. Any form of debt ceiling cancellation or suspension is not acceptable, and fiscal discipline must be strictly observed. It is also very doubtful whether these people will support Trump on some of the issues raised by Trump involving fiscal discipline.
Therefore, there is still uncertainty about which of Trump’s promises he will further implement in the next few weeks, including which new bills he will propose in Congress and which ones will be entangled. I will also follow Trump’s administration with everyone, especially topics related to Sino-US relations, and I will also give you my personal interpretation. Well, tonight’s sharing part will stop here.
04-Live Q&A
@星达重生: The United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the promotion of freezing other climate change-related regulations, what does this mean for Sino-US cooperation in global climate governance?
I don’t know if you are aware of this problem: cooperation in the field of climate change is one of the very few global governance topics that China and the United States can still work together. Whether in military, economy, or high-tech industries, the competitive relationship and friction trend between China and the United States have become increasingly obvious. Climate change is one of the few areas where the two sides can have relatively good communication and dialogue.
If Trump withdraws from the Paris Agreement, although this is not the first time – he withdrew once during his first term as president, and then Biden announced his rejoining after winning the 2020 election. I think the impact of this incident is not only about where the response to extreme climate and temperature changes will go, but also that between China and the United States, one of the few handles that can still have normalized communication and cooperation in global governance has disappeared. This is a very far-reaching impact. After this handle disappears, it is even more difficult to say in which direction the areas where there were differences and competition in the past will develop. In fact, it is also a not-so-good signal for Sino-US relations.
@光之辣酱: Trump emphasized that “the United States and China can solve all the problems in the world together”, this suspense statement is very “Trump”, I want to know what Teacher Liu Yi thinks of this statement?
First, although the United States is a very important export destination for Chinese goods, China’s dependence on the US market has declined after the wave of tariff wars between 2018 and 2019. Canada and Mexico are not only more dependent on the US market, but also have no other choice. But this is not the case with China.
In this case, Trump has to consider: since he wants to get some real feedback from China, or even specific strategic benefits, and China’s dependence on the US market is not as strong as Mexico and Canada, then at least in terms of tone, it cannot be set so high at the beginning.
Another very important reason is that Trump is very willing to promote his foreign policy in the form of head of state diplomacy and direct intervention. Since he has said that he is willing to visit China within 100 days of taking office, and even the message he has revealed is that he hopes to bundle US tariffs on China with a series of other political, economic and technological issues, then he must also release a relatively low and more dialogue-friendly posture at the beginning, so that there may be further interaction in the next step.
But my own feeling is that we cannot have too high expectations for this statement. After all, Trump is very performative and his positions change drastically. I don’t think it’s right to say that Trump is friendly to China or draw any conclusions now.
After all, from his election campaign last year to his inaugural speech on January 20 this year, he revealed that he wanted to maintain and expand the national interests of the United States according to his ideas, some of which are not directly compatible with China’s national interests. This is my personal judgment, for reference only.
