Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump’s First 100 Days Changed the Game – the Next 1300 Could Change the Nation

Opinion

Donald Trump

President-elect Donald Trump at Madison Square Garden in New York

Chris Unger/Zuffa LLC/Getty Images

The country has now witnessed and felt the first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s second term. These days were filled with unrelenting, fast-paced executive action. He signed a record-breaking number of executive orders, though many have been challenged and may be reversed. Working with Congress to pass legislation, though more difficult, leads to more enduring change and is less likely to be challenged in court. While certainly eventful, the jury is still out on how effective these first days have been. More importantly, the period of greater consequence - the months following the first 100 days, which should focus on implementation - will ultimately determine whether the president’s drastic changes can stand the test of time and have their desired impact on American society.

The first months of all Presidential terms include outlining a vision and using presidential influence to shift priorities and change governance structures. The media often focuses on polling and popularity, comparing previous presidents and highlighting public perception of the president's handling of specific issues like the economy, immigration, and national defense. Rasmussen Reports' daily Presidential Tracking Poll now shows 50 percent of likely voters approve of President Trump's job performance, but change has never been popular, and he is unapologetically pursuing it in these first months.


The Trump Administration should be credited for impressive planning and execution, transitioning from campaign to elected official, with a rapid roll-out of policy objectives and assembly of nearly his entire cabinet with blinding speed. We should also recognize the level of transparency brought to government spending and operations through publicized data and open sharing of findings of digital investigations into federal agencies. The President has also spurred national dialogue about the role, size, and management of government and public servants (which has forced introspection among government agencies and government-adjacent organizations that support them).

The president’s goals and areas of focus include higher levels of military recruitment, lower numbers of migrant crossings at the southern border, loosening of regulations to increase energy production, increased foreign investment to promote the creation of manufacturing jobs, attempts to reduce or eliminate global trade imbalances, and promoting a merit-based society.

Yet any progress toward achieving these feats will be overshadowed, and President Trump risks being remembered by some for retribution, destruction, authoritarianism, bigotry, and vitriol if his administration doesn’t change tactics soon. The current approach - indiscriminately dismissing public servants, erratic economic policy stances, and strong-arm use of government pressure to reshape social issues in schools, businesses, and institutions - is being challenged by a growing number of people in the court of public opinion, not to mention actual courts with greater jurisdiction across the country.

President Trump has three critical opportunities to strengthen the federal government through smarter personnel management, greater accountability, and improved operational effectiveness.

First, while the administration’s new civil service regulations reclassifying upwards of 50,000 federal employees aim to enhance policy responsiveness, they fall short of addressing the deeper flaws in the federal hiring process. Structural reforms, not just removals, are needed to modernize how talent is recruited and retained.

Second, the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency has sown confusion, fear, and unnecessary duplication. Rather than building a new bureaucracy, the administration should work with existing oversight bodies like auditors and inspectors general with clearer mandates and resources to combat fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.

Third, the administration must articulate a coherent vision and management agenda, complete with clear performance goals, timelines, and feedback loops. These tools are well-known, effective, and already embedded within the government. What's needed is top-level leadership commitment and empowered public servants to use these mechanisms to their full potential.

His first 100 days and attempts at bold reform underscore that incremental changes in governance are no longer sufficient to address the magnitude of challenges facing the nation, and the country should move beyond improving government to transforming it. The President, Congress, the public, and the public administration community have important roles to play in reshaping government. The next 100 days call for once-in-a-generation leadership typified by respect for people, adherence to the rule of law, and rebuilding institutions that can help reestablish trust and deliver the results the American people deserve.

The next 1,300 days will be important for all of us. The President has demonstrated that the government deeply impacts our daily lives—every person and every community across our country. In the months to come, how we provide care and services to our most vulnerable populations, ensure the economic stability of our markets and individual households, secure our borders, and ensure the safety of our neighborhoods, and learn about our history and our country's traditions will be affected.

President Trump has an opportunity to truly be transformative and earn a place among the most consequential leaders of our time. In his first 100 days in office, he has attempted to overwhelm opposition and disrupt the administrative state. Still, now his charge should be to implement a positive vision for America that includes everyone, unites a sharply divided country, and rebuilds government as something all Americans can call great again.

James-Christian B. Blockwood is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Academy of Public Administration.


Read More

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

A memorial for Ashli Babbitt sits near the US Capitol during a Day of Remembrance and Action on the one year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

(John Lamparski/NurPhoto/AP)

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

In the wake of the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump quickly took up the cause of a 35-year-old veteran named Ashli Babbitt.

“Who killed Ashli Babbitt?” he asked in a one-sentence statement on July 1, 2021.

Keep ReadingShow less
Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

Supreme Court, Allen v. Milligan Illegal Congressional Voting Map

Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

A wave of redistricting battles in early 2026 is reshaping the political map ahead of the midterm elections and intensifying long‑running fights over gerrymandering and democratic representation.

In California, a three‑judge federal panel on January 15 upheld the state’s new congressional districts created under Proposition 50, ruling 2–1 that the map—expected to strengthen Democratic advantages in several competitive seats—could be used in the 2026 elections. The following day, a separate federal court dismissed a Republican lawsuit arguing that the maps were unconstitutional, clearing the way for the state’s redistricting overhaul to stand. In Virginia, Democratic lawmakers have advanced a constitutional amendment that would allow mid‑decade redistricting, a move they describe as a response to aggressive Republican map‑drawing in other states; some legislators have openly discussed the possibility of a congressional map that could yield 10 Democratic‑leaning seats out of 11. In Missouri, the secretary of state has acknowledged in court that ballot language for a referendum on the state’s congressional map could mislead voters, a key development in ongoing litigation over the fairness of the state’s redistricting process. And in Utah, a state judge has ordered a new congressional map that includes one Democratic‑leaning district after years of litigation over the legislature’s earlier plan, prompting strong objections from Republican lawmakers who argue the court exceeded its authority.

Keep ReadingShow less
New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) (L) and Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) lead a group of fellow Republicans through Statuary Hall on the way to a news conference on the 28th day of the federal government shutdown at the U.S. Capitol on October 28, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Every January 1st, many Americans face their failings and resolve to do better by making New Year’s Resolutions. Wouldn’t it be delightful if Congress would do the same? According to Gallup, half of all Americans currently have very little confidence in Congress. And while confidence in our government institutions is shrinking across the board, Congress is near rock bottom. With that in mind, here is a list of resolutions Congress could make and keep, which would help to rebuild public trust in Congress and our government institutions. Let’s start with:

1 – Working for the American people. We elect our senators and representatives to work on our behalf – not on their behalf or on behalf of the wealthiest donors, but on our behalf. There are many issues on which a large majority of Americans agree but Congress can’t. Congress should resolve to address those issues.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two groups of glass figures. One red, one blue.

Congressional paralysis is no longer accidental. Polarization has reshaped incentives, hollowed out Congress, and shifted power to the executive.

Getty Images, Andrii Yalanskyi

How Congress Lost Its Capacity to Act and How to Get It Back

In late 2025, Congress fumbled the Affordable Care Act, failing to move a modest stabilization bill through its own procedures and leaving insurers and families facing renewed uncertainty. As the Congressional Budget Office has warned in multiple analyses over the past decade, policy uncertainty increases premiums and reduces insurer participation (see, for example: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61734). I examined this episode in an earlier Fulcrum article, “Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis,” as a case study in congressional paralysis and leadership failure. The deeper problem, however, runs beyond any single deadline or decision and into the incentives and procedures that now structure congressional authority. Polarization has become so embedded in America’s governing institutions themselves that it shapes how power is exercised and why even routine governance now breaks down.

From Episode to System

The ACA episode wasn’t an anomaly but a symptom. Recent scholarship suggests it reflects a broader structural shift in how Congress operates. In a 2025 academic article available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), political scientist Dmitrii Lebedev reaches a stark conclusion about the current Congress, noting that the 118th Congress enacted fewer major laws than any in the modern era despite facing multiple time-sensitive policy deadlines (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5346916). Drawing on legislative data, he finds that dysfunction is no longer best understood as partisan gridlock alone. Instead, Congress increasingly exhibits a breakdown of institutional capacity within the governing majority itself. Leadership avoidance, procedural delay, and the erosion of governing norms have become routine features of legislative life rather than temporary responses to crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less