Assessing Trump's First 100 Days
April 28, 2025: As the Trump administration approaches 100 days in office on April 29, experts offer quotes that may be attributed directly to them.
Contributing experts include: Sarah Leah Whitson (Executive Director, DAWN); Sarah Yager (Washington Director, Human Rights Watch); Hassan El-Tayyab (Legislative Director for Middle East Policy, Friends Committee on National Legislation); Seth Binder (Director of Advocacy, Middle East Democracy Center); Jeff Abramson (Senior Non-Resident Fellow, Center for International Policy); Stephen Semler (Senior Non-Resident Fellow, Center for International Policy); Matthew Breay Bolton (Professor of Political Science and Co-Director of the International Disarmament Institute, Pace University); and with a longer statements – William D. Hartung (Senior Research Fellow, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft); Jen Spindel (Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of New Hampshire); John Lindsay-Poland, (Coordinator, Stop US Arms to Mexico - a project of Global Exchange).
The Forum on the Arms Trade does not itself take positions. Each commentary is individually authored and does not necessarily imply agreement with or endorsement of the opinions of others.
Contributing experts include: Sarah Leah Whitson (Executive Director, DAWN); Sarah Yager (Washington Director, Human Rights Watch); Hassan El-Tayyab (Legislative Director for Middle East Policy, Friends Committee on National Legislation); Seth Binder (Director of Advocacy, Middle East Democracy Center); Jeff Abramson (Senior Non-Resident Fellow, Center for International Policy); Stephen Semler (Senior Non-Resident Fellow, Center for International Policy); Matthew Breay Bolton (Professor of Political Science and Co-Director of the International Disarmament Institute, Pace University); and with a longer statements – William D. Hartung (Senior Research Fellow, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft); Jen Spindel (Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of New Hampshire); John Lindsay-Poland, (Coordinator, Stop US Arms to Mexico - a project of Global Exchange).
The Forum on the Arms Trade does not itself take positions. Each commentary is individually authored and does not necessarily imply agreement with or endorsement of the opinions of others.
Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director, DAWN
“While the world has been distracted by global Trumpian chaos, the U.S. has embarked on a devastating war in Yemen, killing over 100, bombarding the airport, cemeteries, and bread lines, and causing hundreds of millions in destruction to the already beleaguered nation. President Trump promised to end America’s endless wars, but here we are again in a new illegal armed conflict neither authorized by Congress nor lawful under the UN Charter. Meanwhile, the genocide in Gaza continues unabated, with Trump encouraging Israeli bombardment, displacement and starvation of Palestinians there.”
“While the world has been distracted by global Trumpian chaos, the U.S. has embarked on a devastating war in Yemen, killing over 100, bombarding the airport, cemeteries, and bread lines, and causing hundreds of millions in destruction to the already beleaguered nation. President Trump promised to end America’s endless wars, but here we are again in a new illegal armed conflict neither authorized by Congress nor lawful under the UN Charter. Meanwhile, the genocide in Gaza continues unabated, with Trump encouraging Israeli bombardment, displacement and starvation of Palestinians there.”
Sarah Yager, Washington Director, Human Rights Watch
“We’re only beginning to understand the human rights impacts of President Trump’s tenure in the White House. Just in these first hundred days, we see fact-finding organizations around the world shut down, which means atrocities will go unreported. We see the doors of safe houses shut so human rights defenders fearing for their lives are turned away. We see civilian casualties resulting from fewer restraints on the U.S. military’s use of force. The human suffering we can predict from Trump’s expected 1000+ days in office is simply staggering.”
“We’re only beginning to understand the human rights impacts of President Trump’s tenure in the White House. Just in these first hundred days, we see fact-finding organizations around the world shut down, which means atrocities will go unreported. We see the doors of safe houses shut so human rights defenders fearing for their lives are turned away. We see civilian casualties resulting from fewer restraints on the U.S. military’s use of force. The human suffering we can predict from Trump’s expected 1000+ days in office is simply staggering.”
Hassan El-Tayyab, Legislative Director for Middle East Policy, Friends Committee on National Legislation
"In President Trump’s first 100 days, the initial promise of a Gaza ceasefire offered hope, but that hope has now faded as diplomacy has collapsed and Gaza teeters on the brink of mass starvation without urgent aid. The administration's circumventing of Congress to expedite billions in arms transfers to Israel, despite ongoing atrocities and violations of U.S. law, also undermines core American values and makes us all less secure. Continuing to provide these arms transfers is escalating the conflict, and endangers innocent Palestinian and Israeli lives, and deepens the cycle of violence, pushing the world further into instability."
"In President Trump’s first 100 days, the initial promise of a Gaza ceasefire offered hope, but that hope has now faded as diplomacy has collapsed and Gaza teeters on the brink of mass starvation without urgent aid. The administration's circumventing of Congress to expedite billions in arms transfers to Israel, despite ongoing atrocities and violations of U.S. law, also undermines core American values and makes us all less secure. Continuing to provide these arms transfers is escalating the conflict, and endangers innocent Palestinian and Israeli lives, and deepens the cycle of violence, pushing the world further into instability."
Seth Binder, Director of Advocacy, Middle East Democracy Center
Over the course of the first 100 days, the Trump administration has obliterated American soft power through its cuts to U.S. foreign assistance and disregard for U.S. law, upending one of the key tools that advanced U.S. interests and did some good in the world. What we are left with is a meaner, more transactional foreign policy that values arms transfers over the rule of law and the perception of strength over strategy. In just these 100 days, the Trump administration may have caused irreparable harm to U.S. interests, in which the full cost is only still coming into focus.
Over the course of the first 100 days, the Trump administration has obliterated American soft power through its cuts to U.S. foreign assistance and disregard for U.S. law, upending one of the key tools that advanced U.S. interests and did some good in the world. What we are left with is a meaner, more transactional foreign policy that values arms transfers over the rule of law and the perception of strength over strategy. In just these 100 days, the Trump administration may have caused irreparable harm to U.S. interests, in which the full cost is only still coming into focus.
Jeff Abramson, Senior Non-Resident Fellow, Center for International Policy
“The Trump administration’s first 100 days have been even more dangerous than many feared. His decisions to abandon any restraint in providing arms to Israel and to continue weapons deals with rights-abusing countries such as Saudi Arabia may have been anticipated. So too his reversion to a business-oriented conventional arms transfer policy. But the speed in which he has alienated traditional U.S. allies, undermined international processes, and denigrated respect for human rights is placing the United States and the world on a path that is more heavily armed and less secure.”
“The Trump administration’s first 100 days have been even more dangerous than many feared. His decisions to abandon any restraint in providing arms to Israel and to continue weapons deals with rights-abusing countries such as Saudi Arabia may have been anticipated. So too his reversion to a business-oriented conventional arms transfer policy. But the speed in which he has alienated traditional U.S. allies, undermined international processes, and denigrated respect for human rights is placing the United States and the world on a path that is more heavily armed and less secure.”
Stephen Semler, Senior Non-Resident Fellow, Center for International Policy
“President Trump has amplified existing defects in U.S. foreign policy during his first 100 days. He has further enabled Israeli atrocities in Gaza, deregulated U.S. arms exports, and invested in endless war in the Middle East — the second Trump administration is now the fifth consecutive U.S. administration to bomb Yemen. Trump’s foreign policy has no apparent basis in human rights, realpolitik, or ‘America First.’ No coherent strategy appears to be at play, either, just a series of violent and ill-fated improvisations."
“President Trump has amplified existing defects in U.S. foreign policy during his first 100 days. He has further enabled Israeli atrocities in Gaza, deregulated U.S. arms exports, and invested in endless war in the Middle East — the second Trump administration is now the fifth consecutive U.S. administration to bomb Yemen. Trump’s foreign policy has no apparent basis in human rights, realpolitik, or ‘America First.’ No coherent strategy appears to be at play, either, just a series of violent and ill-fated improvisations."
Matthew Breay Bolton, Professor of Political Science and Co-Director of the International Disarmament Institute, Pace University
“In his first 100 days in office Donald Trump has eviscerated U.S. foreign policy credibility by attacking the very people and programs that project American good will. By freezing efforts to clear landmines and cluster munitions, Trump is putting people’s lives at risk in affected communities. This self-inflicted strategic defeat sends the message that you cannot rely on Washington to follow through on its word. Assistance for demining and mine victim assistance has been a crucial component of diplomatic normalization between the U.S. and Southeast Asian countries. We shouldn’t be surprised if mine-affected countries in the Asia-Pacific region look for partners elsewhere.”
Resource: Matthew Breay Bolton, “Withdrawing from Mine Ban Treaty Would Be a Self-Inflicted Strategic Defeat for European Security: And it will be civilians that pay the cost,” Inkstick, April 24, 2025.
“In his first 100 days in office Donald Trump has eviscerated U.S. foreign policy credibility by attacking the very people and programs that project American good will. By freezing efforts to clear landmines and cluster munitions, Trump is putting people’s lives at risk in affected communities. This self-inflicted strategic defeat sends the message that you cannot rely on Washington to follow through on its word. Assistance for demining and mine victim assistance has been a crucial component of diplomatic normalization between the U.S. and Southeast Asian countries. We shouldn’t be surprised if mine-affected countries in the Asia-Pacific region look for partners elsewhere.”
Resource: Matthew Breay Bolton, “Withdrawing from Mine Ban Treaty Would Be a Self-Inflicted Strategic Defeat for European Security: And it will be civilians that pay the cost,” Inkstick, April 24, 2025.
William D. Hartung, Senior Research Fellow, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Donald Trump, Arms Dealer in Chief
“President Trump’s record on arms transfer policy in the first 100 days of his second term as president is consistent with his approach in his first term – he styles himself as the ultimate deal maker who can push billions of U.S. weaponry out the door to the benefit of major weapons contractors, and then come back and claim credit for the jobs those deals create in the United States.
Through an executive order designed to speed up the approval and delivery of U.S. arms to foreign clients and a proposed reorganization of the State Department that will virtually dismantle the department’s human rights infrastructure while seriously diluting its widely used country reports on human rights, the Trump administration has set the groundwork for a largely transactional approach to the export of deadly weaponry that treats these instruments of potential destruction almost as if they are just like any other product. It’s an arms sales policy that only a weapons manufacturer could love.
The Trump administration’s approach risks enabling repressive, reckless regimes that provoke instability in key regions – the exact opposite of what U.S. arms sales policy should be about.
Reports that the administration is poised to offer up to $100 billion in U.S. arms to Saudi Arabia during his trip there next month, where he may be accompanied by the executives of top U.S. weapons makers, is a sign that the president’s approach has not changed since he first took office in January 2017. In his first term he chose to go to Saudi Arabia for his first foreign trip, and he announced a $110 billion arms package to the kingdom once he got there. Only over time did it emerge that the package was a fantasy, including deals that had already been made under the Obama administration and speculative offers that would not occur until the late 2020s, if at all. Two years into Trump’s first term, the U.S. had made just $14.5 billion in major arms offers to Saudi Arabia. Nonetheless the president claimed that there were up to 500,000 U.S. jobs tied to arms deals he had made with Saudi Arabia, a wildly exaggerated figure that was likely 10 to 20 times the real total. And when he was pressured to curb U.S. sales after the Saudi regime murdered U.S. resident journalist Jamal Khashoggi, he refused to do so, explicitly saying he did not want to reduce revenues to American defense contractors.
There is one aspect of the administration’s policy that could actually reduce arms transfers. The administration’s lack of respect and wavering security commitment to longstanding European allies could prompt some of them to roll back commitments to some of the tens of billions in U.S. weaponry they have pledged to purchase in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, moving instead towards a more self-sufficient European arms industry. This dynamic may not be evident immediately – it will take time to play out, and it will depend upon effective cooperation among European arms producing nations and a common political/strategic agenda among the major players in NATO.
Given the lack of guardrails in the administration’s approach to selling arms around the world, Congress will need to step up if there is to be any kind of careful consideration of the strategic and humanitarian consequences of U.S. weapons exports.”
Resource: William D. Hartung and Ashely Gate, “Trump’s Rush to Arm Foreign Clients Undermines U.S. Security,” Inkstick, April 23, 2025.
Donald Trump, Arms Dealer in Chief
“President Trump’s record on arms transfer policy in the first 100 days of his second term as president is consistent with his approach in his first term – he styles himself as the ultimate deal maker who can push billions of U.S. weaponry out the door to the benefit of major weapons contractors, and then come back and claim credit for the jobs those deals create in the United States.
Through an executive order designed to speed up the approval and delivery of U.S. arms to foreign clients and a proposed reorganization of the State Department that will virtually dismantle the department’s human rights infrastructure while seriously diluting its widely used country reports on human rights, the Trump administration has set the groundwork for a largely transactional approach to the export of deadly weaponry that treats these instruments of potential destruction almost as if they are just like any other product. It’s an arms sales policy that only a weapons manufacturer could love.
The Trump administration’s approach risks enabling repressive, reckless regimes that provoke instability in key regions – the exact opposite of what U.S. arms sales policy should be about.
Reports that the administration is poised to offer up to $100 billion in U.S. arms to Saudi Arabia during his trip there next month, where he may be accompanied by the executives of top U.S. weapons makers, is a sign that the president’s approach has not changed since he first took office in January 2017. In his first term he chose to go to Saudi Arabia for his first foreign trip, and he announced a $110 billion arms package to the kingdom once he got there. Only over time did it emerge that the package was a fantasy, including deals that had already been made under the Obama administration and speculative offers that would not occur until the late 2020s, if at all. Two years into Trump’s first term, the U.S. had made just $14.5 billion in major arms offers to Saudi Arabia. Nonetheless the president claimed that there were up to 500,000 U.S. jobs tied to arms deals he had made with Saudi Arabia, a wildly exaggerated figure that was likely 10 to 20 times the real total. And when he was pressured to curb U.S. sales after the Saudi regime murdered U.S. resident journalist Jamal Khashoggi, he refused to do so, explicitly saying he did not want to reduce revenues to American defense contractors.
There is one aspect of the administration’s policy that could actually reduce arms transfers. The administration’s lack of respect and wavering security commitment to longstanding European allies could prompt some of them to roll back commitments to some of the tens of billions in U.S. weaponry they have pledged to purchase in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, moving instead towards a more self-sufficient European arms industry. This dynamic may not be evident immediately – it will take time to play out, and it will depend upon effective cooperation among European arms producing nations and a common political/strategic agenda among the major players in NATO.
Given the lack of guardrails in the administration’s approach to selling arms around the world, Congress will need to step up if there is to be any kind of careful consideration of the strategic and humanitarian consequences of U.S. weapons exports.”
Resource: William D. Hartung and Ashely Gate, “Trump’s Rush to Arm Foreign Clients Undermines U.S. Security,” Inkstick, April 23, 2025.
Jen Spindel, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of New Hampshire
Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office have renewed the “everything is a business” approach to foreign policy and arms sales we saw during his first term. Rather than take time to understand the importance of reputation, consistency, and predictability, Trump uses arms sales as a brute force tool to get others to do what he wants. He has not brought peace in the Middle East or Ukraine: arms sales to Israel have continued and the flow of arms to Ukraine has been a confusing series of stops and starts. By gutting the federal government in the name of “efficiency,” Trump has spent more taxpayer money and only harmed the security of the United States. We are headed toward a world in which the flow of arms is unprecedented and where human rights concerns are willfully overlooked. I am concerned that in the name of efficiency and expediency, the United States will struggle to follow its own laws about arms transfers laid out in the 1976 Arms Control Export Act, particularly where violations of human rights are concerned. Trump’s brash business approach to arms sales and military aid continues to make allies nervous. Rather than continue to rely on the U.S., European partners are embarking on their own expanded defense industrial projects, which will further erode ties between long-standing partners. What takes a single stroke of the pen to dismantle will take decades to rebuild. Rather than rejoice in supposed budget savings, the Trump administration needs to focus on the broad goals of U.S. arms sales and military aid, and would benefit from a crash course in U.S. arms sales laws and bureaucracy.”
Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office have renewed the “everything is a business” approach to foreign policy and arms sales we saw during his first term. Rather than take time to understand the importance of reputation, consistency, and predictability, Trump uses arms sales as a brute force tool to get others to do what he wants. He has not brought peace in the Middle East or Ukraine: arms sales to Israel have continued and the flow of arms to Ukraine has been a confusing series of stops and starts. By gutting the federal government in the name of “efficiency,” Trump has spent more taxpayer money and only harmed the security of the United States. We are headed toward a world in which the flow of arms is unprecedented and where human rights concerns are willfully overlooked. I am concerned that in the name of efficiency and expediency, the United States will struggle to follow its own laws about arms transfers laid out in the 1976 Arms Control Export Act, particularly where violations of human rights are concerned. Trump’s brash business approach to arms sales and military aid continues to make allies nervous. Rather than continue to rely on the U.S., European partners are embarking on their own expanded defense industrial projects, which will further erode ties between long-standing partners. What takes a single stroke of the pen to dismantle will take decades to rebuild. Rather than rejoice in supposed budget savings, the Trump administration needs to focus on the broad goals of U.S. arms sales and military aid, and would benefit from a crash course in U.S. arms sales laws and bureaucracy.”
John Lindsay-Poland, Coordinator, Stop US Arms to Mexico (a project of Global Exchange)
Changes in firearms policies were not at the top of Trump’s list for executive orders, but he is making his way toward such changes. On February 7, he directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to identify policies and practices that infringe on Second Amendment rights. In early April, Bondi terminated the Biden “zero tolerance” policy that revoked licenses from gun dealers that commit significant legal violations that facilitate gun trafficking.
At least as impactful has been Trump’s designation of, first, FBI director Kash Patel, then Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll as interim directors - even as Patel and Driscoll held other full-time jobs - of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the agency that regulates the gun business and investigates gun trafficking, both domestically and internationally. Administration leaders have also floated the idea of merging ATF with the much larger Drug Enforcement Administration. The changes have led to the resignations of several high-level ATF leaders.
The moves to disable the already weak ATF occur as Trump declared Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, but has been completely silent about the principal source of weapons these organizations use to commit violence and run their illicit businesses - the U.S. retail firearms market. Measures to regulate the gun market, which will weaken cartels and reduce gun violence in the United States are within easy reach, if the regime in Washington chooses to pursue them.
Changes in firearms policies were not at the top of Trump’s list for executive orders, but he is making his way toward such changes. On February 7, he directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to identify policies and practices that infringe on Second Amendment rights. In early April, Bondi terminated the Biden “zero tolerance” policy that revoked licenses from gun dealers that commit significant legal violations that facilitate gun trafficking.
At least as impactful has been Trump’s designation of, first, FBI director Kash Patel, then Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll as interim directors - even as Patel and Driscoll held other full-time jobs - of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the agency that regulates the gun business and investigates gun trafficking, both domestically and internationally. Administration leaders have also floated the idea of merging ATF with the much larger Drug Enforcement Administration. The changes have led to the resignations of several high-level ATF leaders.
The moves to disable the already weak ATF occur as Trump declared Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, but has been completely silent about the principal source of weapons these organizations use to commit violence and run their illicit businesses - the U.S. retail firearms market. Measures to regulate the gun market, which will weaken cartels and reduce gun violence in the United States are within easy reach, if the regime in Washington chooses to pursue them.