Trump’s First 50 Days

How His Policies Are Shaping America—and How the Country Is Responding

Since D&D evolved into a more political newsletter in 2024, I thought it would be fitting to dedicate an article to the significant first 50 days of Donald Trump’s second presidency. Unlike his first term, where he accomplished relatively little, his team came in far better prepared to do stuff this time, with a clearer vision for governing—and it shows.

I owe everyone reading this a disclaimer, which is that I know much less about executive branch politics and the judicial system than electoral politics/US demography/political geography. This isn’t my exact wheelhouse, but I think I’ll still have some good thoughts for everyone and it could be a useful good read.

I’ll aim to provide an objective overview of Trump’s early presidency, examining key policy areas, the administration’s steps and setbacks, and how likely these initiatives are to succeed and be supported by the American people based on expert opinion, prediction markets, and historical precedent.

Immigration Policy

Actions & Policies: Immigration has been the centerpiece of Trump’s politics for his entire career, from his rise to prominence in the 2016 GOP primary to the start of his second term in the last couple of months. On Day 1, he declared a national emergency at the southern border to deploy military forces and swiftly shut down the Biden-era CBP One asylum scheduling program​. He also signed orders to reinstate hardline policies: reviving the “Remain in Mexico” program (forcing asylum seekers to wait abroad) and invoking public-health expulsions similar to Title 42​. Trump vowed “the largest domestic deportation operation in American history,” even suggesting it could target “Dreamers” (undocumented immigrants brought to US as children historically protected from deportation under DACA) and other historically protected groups​. Immigration authorities indeed ramped up enforcement – in the first week, thousands of illegal immigrants were arrested daily, with over 8,000 arrests in the first 10 days (far above recent norms)​. By late January, the administration touted a new law (the Laken Riley Act) as its first legislative win, requiring detention of undocumented immigrants charged with certain crimes and allowing states to sue the federal government for lax enforcement​. Trump also issued an executive order to end birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of undocumented parents​– a move with “uncertain” (a word choice that is probably too kind lol) legal footing.

Congress & Legal Challenges: With Republicans in control of the House (and a narrow Senate majority), Trump’s immigration push found support in the GOP-led Congress. The House quickly passed a border security bill, and the Senate approved the Laken Riley Act in late January​. However, Democrats and immigrant-rights groups mounted legal challenges. Within days, civil liberties organizations sued to block the asylum suspension and the birthright citizenship order, arguing these actions violate existing law and the Constitution. Immigration law experts note Trump “has no real legal pathway” to revoke birthright citizenship by decree – changing the 14th Amendment would require Congress or the courts to agree​. Past precedent is on their side: even Trump’s 2017 travel ban had to be revised after courts struck down its initial versions.

Public Response: The public’s reaction to Trump’s immigration moves has been deeply split. A lot of his ideas (even those many elected Democrats diametrically oppose) are popular with the majority of American voters, while others are not. Americans prefer Trump’s “closed” southern border over Biden’s “semi-open” southern border by a lot, but the popularity of Trump’s policies goes farther than that. Pew Research Polling drove into this in early February and found broad concern regarding illegal immigration, and 59% of U.S. adults approve of “increasing efforts to deport” those here illegally​. This includes 43% of Asian Democrats and 40% of Black Democrats (a lot!), which is pretty notable given how much Democrats are bleeding support with these demographics and how high-salience illegal immigration and deportations is as an issue. A similarly high share (58%) favor sending additional troops to the border​. However, specific measures drew more skepticism – 55% opposed suspending asylum applications and a majority objected to punishing “sanctuary” cities by cutting their funds​. In other words, the median American supports stricter border and immigration enforcement to a certain extent but worry about extreme or indiscriminate tactics. Nationwide protests have erupted: immigrant advocates organized “Day Without Immigrants” rallies and weekly demonstrations in cities like Los Angeles, condemning mass deportations. These protests, while vocal, have been more modest than the “resist” movement in early 2017, reflecting both fatigue and the reality that Trump’s moves were expected.

Outlook & Likelihood of Success: Trump’s aggressive immigration agenda is already partially in effect, but its ultimate scope is uncertain. Obviously he will be able to substantially decrease the number of illegal border crossings, like Obama and Trump both did during their first term. Americans clearly want a secure southern border in public opinion polling, and there’s plenty of precedent that the president can easily make this happen through executive action. Expert opinions suggest that truly deporting the promised millions of people would be logistically difficult and face judicial roadblocks, especially if DACA recipients are targeted. The new administration can significantly expand enforcement – as seen by the surge in detentions – yet large-scale removals could overwhelm immigration courts and provoke legislative backlash. So far, the consensus betting markets on Polymarket suggest skepticism that Trump will hit his most ambitious targets – for instance, the odds of deporting 750,000+ people in 2025 (nearly triple the recent annual figure) have been about 20%, reflecting doubt that such an unprecedented policy will actually happen. Historical precedent backs this caution: past crackdowns (even under Presidents Obama and Trump’s first term) never removed more than about 400,000 people annually. In summary, Trump has forcefully reset immigration policy toward enforcement, but court rulings and practical limits are likely to modulate how far it goes.

Economic and Market Impact

Actions & Policies: President Trump wasted no time signaling a sharp turn in economic policy, emphasizing protectionism and deregulation. In early February, he stunned trade partners by imposing sweeping tariffs: 25% duties on all goods from Mexico and Canada and 10% on imports from China​. (Energy imports from Canada faced a lower 10% tariff to temper domestic gas price impacts​.) Trump justified these tariffs as retaliation for the “extraordinary threat” of illegal drug flows and border insecurity, invoking emergency powers usually reserved for national security sanctions. The immediate impact was turbulent – Mexico and Canada threatened retaliatory tariffs, prompting Trump to briefly pause his 25% tariffs for 30 days in exchange for those countries deploying more troops and tech to help secure the border​. When negotiations yielded limited results, the administration went ahead and enforced the full tariffs by early March, reigniting fears of a trade war​. Beyond trade, Trump also moved to loosen business regulations: he announced a freeze on new federal rules, a broad federal hiring freeze to shrink bureaucracy​, and created a special White House unit (the “Department of Government Efficiency” led by Elon Musk) tasked with slashing “wasteful” regulations and programs​. On the fiscal front, the administration began drafting a budget with deep spending cuts to domestic agencies, aligning with Trump’s campaign call to cut federal spending by 5% across the board. While no major tax legislation has passed yet, officials have hinted at a “Tax Cuts 2.0” plan in the works to make the 2017 individual tax cuts permanent and further reduce capital gains taxes – a prospect that has buoyed investor optimism.

Market and Industry Response: After Trump's election, the business community initially reacted positively, with U.S. stock indexes rising on expectations of tax cuts and corporate-friendly policies. However, sentiment turned negative after his inauguration as tariff disputes introduced new market volatility. Manufacturers and farmers, in particular, expressed alarm at the blanket tariffs on North American trade. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned that the unprecedented use of emergency tariffs “won’t solve these problems, and will only raise prices for American families and upend supply chains.”​ Financial markets reacted swiftly: auto industry stocks fell on fears of higher component costs, and agricultural commodity prices swung as traders anticipated foreign retaliation against U.S. exports. When Trump temporarily delayed the Mexico/Canada tariffs in February, markets regained some calm, only to slump again once the duties were imposed in March, triggering a trade dispute​. On the positive side, energy and mining sectors have rallied – Trump’s rollback of climate rules and support for fossil fuel projects (like fast-tracking oil & gas leases on federal land) signaled a more permissive environment for drilling and mining. Small business confidence also ticked up, with some firms anticipating lighter regulation and lower taxes. Overall, the economy’s underlying metrics (jobs, inflation) did not change dramatically in 50 days, but business uncertainty has increased. A lot of key players are openly planning a “wait and see” strategy on major investments, citing the unpredictable swings in trade policy (one analyst described Trump’s “dizzying jerks and jolts” on tariffs as freezing business decisions in some sectors)​. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJI) has declined by about 5% since Trump’s inauguration, reflecting growing concerns among investors. Fears of a potential recession—or even worse stagflation—have begun to take hold, as uncertainty over trade policies, inflationary pressures, and market volatility weigh on economic outlooks. Only time can tell.

Public and Political Response: Economically, Americans remain split largely along partisan lines. Republicans largely applaud Trump’s aggressive stance with trading partners and efforts to boost domestic industry. Many conservatives see the market dips as short-term and believe rebalancing trade will pay off. Democrats and centrist economists, however, are warning of potential recession risks if global trade tensions worsen. Polls indicate the public’s top concern is still high inflation. By late February, a majority of Americans said Trump had “not done enough to address high prices” for goods​. His flurry of executive actions had yet to translate into lower costs for essentials, and in fact tariffs on imports could increase consumer prices on everything from cars to groceries. This has put Trump on the defensive – he has blamed the Federal Reserve’s past rate hikes for inflation and pressured the Fed Chair to consider rate cuts to stimulate growth. In Congress, even some Republicans in farm states quietly worry Trump’s trade fight could hurt their constituents; a few GOP senators have hinted they might support legislation reasserting congressional authority over tariffs if allies are hit hard. Prediction markets reflect a guarded outlook: traders give moderate odds that the U.S. will enter a recession by next year (somewhere around 30–40% probability, per popular betting indices). The true economic impact of Trump’s policies will take more time to play out, but his first 50 days have clearly signaled a priority shift from global integration toward harder bargaining, economic nationalism, and potentially protectionism.

Outlook & Likelihood of Success: The success of Trump’s economic agenda will depend on balancing bold actions with avoiding unintended consequences. On trade, there is a real chance of negotiation “wins” – indeed, Trump’s hard line quickly pushed Mexico to deploy thousands of troops to its side of the border and Canada to step up drug interdiction efforts​. If these measures satisfy the administration, tariffs could be rolled back, which would relieve pressure on supply chains. However, if disputes escalate, all sides could suffer: history shows that tariff wars (e.g. the 2018-2019 U.S.–China trade war) hurt manufacturing jobs and raised prices without clearly boosting domestic output. Trump is betting that partners will yield before significant U.S. economic damage occurs. Legislative achievements may prove really hard in the next couple of years: a major tax cut or infrastructure bill will require Senate cooperation and time. Prediction markets currently favor at least a slim tax cut passing by year’s end, given GOP control, but budget hawks worry about the deficit impact. In summary, Trump’s economic gambits have set the stage for possible gains (a more favorable trade balance, revitalized oil production) but also carry significant risk.

Foreign Policy & Diplomacy

Actions & Policies: In his first weeks in office, Trump’s foreign policy marked a sharp break not only from his predecessor but also from half a century of GOP tradition—despite an often discussed return to Reagan-era principles. In reality, Trump’s approach could not have been more different from Reagan’s and other Republicans who championed “peace through strength” and saw America as the enduring leader of the free world.

Trump focuses on “America First” diplomacy that is more transactional and, in many cases, more isolationist​. The most striking shift has been on Ukraine and Russia. Trump entered office openly skeptical of the ongoing U.S. support for Ukraine in its war against Russian aggression. He quickly moved to pause further military aid to Ukraine and pushed for peace negotiations, asserting he could end the war “quickly.” At a high-profile summit in late February, French President Emmanuel Macron and other European leaders came to Washington “pleading” with Trump not to abandon Ukraine​. While Trump publicly maintained he wants a “deal” that protects Ukraine’s sovereignty, he also signaled a softer stance toward Moscow: the U.S. delegation voted against a UN resolution condemning Russia’s invasion, a shocking break from prior U.S. policy that “shocked major European capitals.” ​A planned White House meeting with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on February 28 erupted in a shouting match, after which Zelenskyy left Washington empty-handed​. Trump berated Zelenskyy and called him a “dictator” unwilling to compromise, while Zelenskyy insisted on not surrendering territory – their clash dashed hopes of a U.S.-Ukraine rare minerals deal that Trump had touted as a way to give Ukraine “skin in the game” for peace​. By early March, U.S.–Ukraine relations were badly strained, and Ukraine’s bond markets tumbled amid investor fears that Washington’s backing was evaporating​.

Beyond Europe, Trump’s foreign policy moves have combined assertiveness with retrenchment. In the Middle East, he strongly backed Israel’s security stance following the prior year’s conflicts. He issued a blunt ultimatum to Hamas to release all remaining American hostages in Gaza, even hinting at direct U.S. action if they did not comply​. At the same time, Trump signaled less interest in expansive nation-building or human-rights interventions. For example, he quietly withdrew U.S. support for certain UN human rights programs and indicated the U.S. would reduce its role in monitoring Saudi Arabia’s actions in Yemen, aiming to repair ties with the Saudi leadership. On China, Trump’s approach so far has centered on economic confrontation (the tariffs mentioned above) and technological rivalry. He reversed a late Biden administration move that would have banned TikTok, opting to “pause” the TikTok ban for 75 days pending a review​– a sign he may negotiate with Beijing on tech issues rather than continue an outright ban. However, he’s also expanded U.S. export restrictions on advanced semiconductors to China, doubling down on the tech/trade war. In alliances, Trump has put NATO on notice once again. While he has not moved to withdraw from NATO, he pointedly demanded allies increase defense spending “or the U.S. will reconsider its commitments.” European allies, already nervous over Ukraine, take this pretty seriously. The new administration’s tone toward NATO is reminiscent of 2017, with Trump praising nations like Poland for meeting spending targets and publicly chastising Germany (and now the U.K. under centre-left PM Keir Starmer) for “relying too much on American protection.” Diplomatically, Trump favors bilateral deals: he’s floated the idea of a U.S.-UK trade deal (to entice Britain post-Brexit) and a revamped “Quad” partnership with India, Japan, and Australia focused narrowly on trade and anti-terror cooperation rather than broader security guarantees.

Allies and International Response: The global response to Trump’s second term has ranged from cautious engagement to open concern. Close U.S. allies in Western Europe have largely tried to “manage” Trump through flattery and negotiation. France’s Macron, for instance, publicly commended Trump for at least working with Zelenskyy on a minerals agreement and stressed that “peace must not mean a surrender of Ukraine”, attempting to anchor Trump to that principle. The U.K.’s new prime minister (Keir Starmer), in a visit to Washington, reportedly urged Trump to maintain a unified stance against Russian aggression and offered increased British support in other areas to compensate (such as more funding for NATO or joint Pacific patrols) if the U.S. holds firm on Ukraine. In contrast, leaders in Moscow and Beijing have welcomed a less confrontational America. Vladimir Putin called Trump’s steps “promising” and indicated Russia would participate in Saudi-hosted talks – a signal that Moscow sees an opportunity to secure a favorable freeze in the Ukraine war. (Critics worry any Trump-brokered deal might legitimize Russia’s territorial gains). China’s government has been more muted publicly, but state media noted the U.S. “is reining in its hegemony,” highlighting Trump’s reduced emphasis on human rights pressures. U.S. allies in Asia, like Japan and South Korea, are watchful: they value Trump’s hard line on China trade but are uneasy about any potential U.S. military pullback from the region.

Executive Orders and Deregulation

Actions & Scope: President Trump has wielded his executive pen prolifically since January 20, signing a record number of executive orders (26 on his first day alone)​. These orders span a wide range of policy areas, all aimed at swiftly reversing Biden-era policies and advancing Trump’s agenda without waiting for Congress. Among the most notable Day 1 directives were orders repealing dozens of Biden’s executive orders – in fact, Trump rescinded 67 prior EOs and 11 memoranda on day one​, targeting policies on climate, COVID, and equity. He also imposed a government-wide hiring freeze for federal employees to trim the workforce​, and re-imposed a requirement that agencies eliminate two regulations for every new one (a revived version of his 2017 “2-for-1” order). A central theme has been dismantling what Trump allies call the “administrative state.” He fired or removed inspectors general in at least 17 agencies, in what observers dubbed a “late-night purge” of internal watchdogs​. (Notably, these firings likely violated a law requiring 30-day notice to Congress for IG removals​–a legal fight is brewing over that, as discussed below.) Trump also set up a new regulatory review team led by tech billionaire Elon Musk – humorously nicknamed “Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)” – tasked with rooting out programs related to diversity training, climate mitigation, and other initiatives Trump opposes. Within days, DOGE identified over 2,600 federal programs for potential cuts or overhaul​, including major Department of Education grants and certain consumer protection efforts. Several executive orders targeted “woke” policies and social regulations. Trump signed orders ending all Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) programs in federal agencies and instructing the military to disband its DEI offices​. He issued an order barring transgender individuals from serving in the military (reinstating his 2017 policy) and simultaneously ordering the Pentagon to reinstate service members dismissed over refusal to take the COVID-19 vaccine​. Another order, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology,” directed federal departments to legally define gender strictly as biological sex at birth, effectively rolling back protections for transgender people in education and healthcare​. In the healthcare realm, Trump signed an executive order seeking to end what he called “chemical and surgical mutilation of minors” – essentially, attempting to ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth nationwide​. This order instructs HHS to withhold certain funding from states that allow puberty blockers or gender-reassignment surgeries for minors, a move that goes far beyond previous federal policy and directly challenges state authority on medical standards. On the environment and deregulation, Trump’s orders canceled a slew of climate initiatives: he reauthorized the Keystone XL pipeline and other oil projects that Biden halted, revoked regulations limiting fossil fuel emissions, and announced the U.S. would formally withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord (again) by summer 2025​. Agencies like the EPA have been directed to “review and revise” rules on clean water and endangered species to be more industry-friendly. In a symbolic flourish, one Day 1 order even renamed Alaska’s Denali mountain back to “Mount McKinley” (reversing the 2015 name change) and proposed renaming the “Gulf of Mexico” to the “Gulf of America” on federal maps​– largely symbolic moves that nonetheless signal Trump’s intent to undo Obama-era legacies.

Challenges & Legal Issues: Trump’s aggressive use of executive orders has unsurprisingly led to immediate legal challenges. Civil rights groups filed lawsuits against the transgender military ban within days, arguing it violates equal protection; a federal lawsuit was indeed filed by late January challenging that ban​. Likewise, LGBTQ advocacy organizations and medical associations have gone to court to block the order restricting transgender healthcare for minors, calling it a grave infringement on parental rights and state-regulated medical practice. Early injunctions are likely in those cases, given that federal courts previously blocked similar state-level bans in some jurisdictions. Historically, many new presidents’ early executive orders get tied up in court – Trump’s first-term travel ban, for example, was partially halted until a revised version passed Supreme Court muster. We see a similar pattern emerging: “immediate legal challenges” have confronted many of Trump’s new orders​, and outcomes will vary. Conservative judges may uphold some actions (the current Supreme Court has been deferential on issues like military policy and executive discretion), but others—especially those that clash with explicit congressional statutes or constitutional rights—could be struck down. For instance, experts widely view the birthright citizenship order as unconstitutional on its face; even some Trump-allied jurists have doubted its legality. As one analysis bluntly noted, an executive order cannot overturn a constitutional amendment​, suggesting Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship is destined to fail in court absent an amendment or Supreme Court reversal of longstanding precedent.

Public and Political Response: Domestically, Trump’s rapid-fire executive actions have been polarizing but not surprising. His supporters are energized, seeing a president making good on promises “on Day One.” In a CBS News poll, a majority (even some who didn’t vote for him) acknowledged Trump is “doing what he promised” and appeared “focused” and “energetic” in pushing his agenda​. Many conservatives cheered the abolition of DEI programs and the assertive stance on cultural issues. However, these moves also galvanized opposition. Progressive groups have decried what they call an “assault on inclusion and science,” pointing to the dismantling of diversity initiatives and the scrapping of Biden’s AI safety regulations (Trump scrapped a 2023 AI safety order to signal a more hands-off tech policy​). Environmental activists held rallies condemning the U.S. exit from the Paris Accord and the revival of fossil fuel projects, arguing this undermines the fight against climate change. Public opinion on specific orders varies: for example, polls find most Americans (around 64%) support allowing transgender people to serve in the military, so Trump’s ban may lack broad public support. Similarly, national polling shows strong support for DACA Dreamers – if Trump were to start deporting them (enabled by ending DACA protections), backlash would likely be fierce. So far, Trump has not explicitly canceled DACA renewals (perhaps to avoid that immediate firestorm while other fights rage). The net effect on Trump’s approval rating from these EOs has been mixed: his overall job approval in mid-February hovered in the mid-40s%. Notably, two separate polls (CNN and Washington Post) by late February indicated majorities believe Trump has “overstepped his authority” in some cases. Only about one-third of Americans approved of tech mogul Elon Musk having an official government role in cutting programs, according to the WaPo/Ipsos survey.

Social Policies & Domestic Issues

Education and Social Programs: On the domestic front, Trump’s early moves extended into education, healthcare, and other social policy areas, often reflecting conservative priorities. In education, the administration has prioritized curbing what it calls “indoctrination.” While a full voucher or school choice program would require legislation, Trump used his influence to promote “patriotic education.” He re-established by executive order the 1776 Commission (which had been dissolved under Biden) to advocate a traditionalist U.S. history curriculum, and urged states to adopt its recommendations. Federal guidance was issued to schools via the Department of Education, discouraging curricula that emphasize critical race theory or diverse perspectives on gender identity. Haven't been enacted yet, but they signal an intent to shrink federal involvement in local education. In higher education, Trump ordered the DOE to review university programs for “political bias” – hinting at possible future action on campus free speech, such as requiring universities to protect speech in exchange for federal research dollars (something he did via order in 2019, and could reintroduce).

Civil Rights and Justice: Trump’s domestic agenda also touches on civil rights enforcement and law enforcement issues. Federal civil rights investigations into police departments (for alleged abuse or discriminatory practices) have been deprioritized or halted; Trump’s Attorney General announced a review of all open “pattern or practice” probes of police, with an eye to ending consent decrees that were put in place under Biden. Conversely, DOJ has ramped up actions on Trump’s “law and order” promises: instructing U.S. attorneys to aggressively prosecute crimes like carjackings and drug offenses, and seeking harsher sentences. Trump also used an executive order to create a task force on “American Values in Government,” aimed at promoting religious liberty – for example, making it easier for federal employees to get religious exemptions (from things like vaccine mandates or duties they object to). On the flip side, advocacy groups worry this could allow discrimination, such as federal contractors being able to claim religious exemptions to LGBTQ anti-discrimination rules (something hinted at in Trump’s order).

Public Response: The public’s response to these social and domestic policy shifts has been diverse. Education policies have fueled local debates – some parents applaud the emphasis on patriotic curriculum, while others (including many teachers’ unions) criticize it as a political intrusion and a whitewashing of history. School walkouts occurred in a few cities (e.g., in California) where students protested the administration’s stance on race and LGBTQ topics in schools​. Polling suggests Americans are roughly split on “culture war” education issues; a slim majority support teaching about racial history even if uncomfortable, but a significant minority agrees with Trump’s view that schools have become too “politically correct.” On healthcare, proposals to scale back Obamacare provisions are generally unpopular – past polling has shown most Americans, even some GOP voters, want to keep key ACA benefits. Democrats have seized on this, warning that Trump may threaten coverage for preexisting conditions (though Trump insists he’ll protect those). So far, no one has lost coverage in 50 days, so public attention is more focused on the abortion pill issue: surveys indicate about two-thirds of Americans believe medication abortion should remain legal in their state, so any federal restriction is controversial. When it comes to law enforcement and civil rights, Trump’s stance divides the public largely along partisan lines. His call for stronger policing and punishment plays well with his base and many moderates concerned about crime – early polling shows rising approval for Trump’s handling of crime.

Likelihood of Success: Many of these domestic policy changes can be implemented through executive action or administrative rulemaking, which means Trump has a good chance of seeing them temporarily put in place. The question is how durable and effective they will be. Education curriculum influence from the federal level historically has limits – education is largely local, and while Trump’s rhetoric may embolden some school boards to adopt conservative standards, others will openly defy it. Unless Congress ties federal funding to curriculum (unlikely), schools in blue states will likely ignore directives from the 1776 Commission. Thus, Trump may “succeed” in red states and not in blue states, leading to an even more fragmented national education landscape. On healthcare, without new legislation, Trump can only partially chip away at the ACA. His executive actions might reduce enrollment or undermine certain provisions, but the core of Obamacare (like Medicaid expansion and insurance exchanges) remains law. In fact, experts think a full repeal is improbable given slim margins in the Senate – I can’t find a prediction market but I would say the odds of a complete ACA repeal during Trump’s term are fairly low (around 20%). More feasible is that Trump’s HHS finds administrative ways to grant states waivers to run Medicaid with more restrictions, which could reshape healthcare for low-income Americans in conservative states (a win for those seeking state flexibility, but a cut to benefits in practice).

Social issues like abortion will continue to be incredibly high salience. Any federal abortion ban would be a heavy lift politically, so Trump’s impact may come through agency actions and court appointments. He has already signaled he’ll nominate conservative judges to any vacancies (and there is speculation about a Supreme Court retirement in the next year or two). If that happens, it could further tilt judicial interpretation of social policies in Trump’s favor for decades. Historically, second-term (or second-administration) presidents often focus on foreign policy, but Trump appears equally invested in domestic ideological issues. The success of his domestic agenda will thus also depend on 2026 midterms – if backlash is strong and Democrats gain Congress, they could block or reverse some changes. For now, short-term success is likely in implementing his desired rule changes (such as enforcing work requirements, restricting abortion pills, etc.), but long-term permanence is uncertain. Many could be reversed by a future administration or struck down if found unlawful.