Trump’s First 100 Days in Office
Asharq al-Awsat, London, May 25
In late April and early May, I was visiting the US. It was the 100th day since Donald Trump’s inauguration as president of the US.
Traditionally a symbolic milestone, this occasion carried far more weight than usual – for the president himself, his supporters, his critics, the American media, and much of the world. The reason was simple: the sheer volume of executive orders Trump had signed, the sweeping ambitions he laid out, and the grandiose language he employed to do so.
Among the more outlandish goals he floated were making Canada the 51st state, annexing Greenland, taking control of the Panama Canal, turning Gaza into a Riviera-style tourist haven, restricting foreign nationals, deporting undocumented immigrants, attacking the ideological bent of universities, dismantling government institutions, slashing federal budgets, and downsizing various bureaucracies.
But perhaps the most consequential element of Trump’s early presidency has been his aggressive approach to trade policy. He imposed tariffs on imported goods from countries considered close allies, including Canada and Mexico – America’s partners in long-standing economic agreements – as well as from Western European nations.
The most significant tariffs, however, targeted goods from China, the largest exporter to the US. These tariffs were framed as tools to boost US government revenue, narrow the trade deficit, increase domestic manufacturing, and create jobs.
The result was a profound shock to the global economy, the likes of which had not been seen in recent memory. Uncertainty spread rapidly, investments dried up, and the financial markets – especially in the US – suffered, marked by volatile swings in stocks, bonds, currencies, oil, gold, and other commodities. The American economy slipped into recession during the first quarter of the year.
A question now dominates discussions among citizens, analysts, and policy-makers both inside and outside the US: Why did Trump enact such measures, and why did he do so in such unusually blunt, confrontational language, rarely seen in American diplomacy?
Some observers attribute this to Trump’s personality – an approach shaped by years in real estate, where asking for the moon is a tactic to secure what one truly wants. Others argue that he is acting strategically, with a small group of conservative Republicans, to pursue clearly defined short- and long-term objectives. Still others warn that Trump and his loyalist faction are seeking to reshape America into a quasi-authoritarian state – one that maintains democratic appearances, such as elections, a legislature, and courts, but is guided by centralized power.
The slogan that fueled Trump’s campaign – “Make America Great Again” – continues to guide his administration’s rhetoric and priorities.
There is no denying that America remains the world’s dominant superpower. Its economy accounts for roughly a quarter of global GDP, and the dollar serves as the backbone of international financial transactions. Wall Street is the central node of the global financial system. American universities, research institutions, and technological leadership in fields like artificial intelligence remain unrivaled.
Militarily, the US has no true peer. It possesses the most advanced offensive and defensive systems, operates around 800 military installations worldwide, and maintains a constant global presence with its fleets of warships and aircraft carriers.
Yet despite this, Trump and much of the Republican Party continue to frame their mission as one of restoring lost greatness.
Anyone familiar with America four decades ago can attest to the changes it has undergone – shifts that are relative in nature but undeniable. America’s infrastructure, in many areas, has deteriorated compared to both its own past and other nations’ present. Homelessness is on the rise. But perhaps more striking is the cultural shift: a diminishing work ethic and a waning appetite for skilled trades and manual labor.
Internationally, the US now faces growing industrial and technological competition from countries once considered peripheral – China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, and Brazil. For now, the challenge remains economic rather than military or political, but it could evolve.
The US once contained Japan’s rise in the 1980s, but China and India present a very different scale of threat. The most pressing question is whether Trump can truly reverse these domestic and global tides. Or is the task too vast, too complex, too deeply embedded in broader structural forces?
Evidence suggests the latter. Consider, for example, the delicate balance between military spending and civilian investment. A nation cannot endlessly expand its defense budget without undermining infrastructure, education, healthcare, and innovation. Likewise, bringing manufacturing back to American soil would require a robust labor force – particularly in skilled and semiskilled sectors – which the US currently lacks. Labor in America costs roughly twice as much as in many other countries, and as growth accelerates, so will demand and, with it, wages.
The logical solution is to increase immigration, but not from the European sources some conservatives idealize. In reality, the labor will have to come from Latin America, Africa, and Asia – regions that Trump’s base is often vocally hostile toward. Immigration policy, therefore, stands at the heart of the contradiction.
If domestic opposition to Trump’s agenda gains traction, it could erode the coalition that brought him to power. His political alliance, which includes Evangelical Christians, hardline nationalists, and economic conservatives, is already strained. Take energy, for example: Trump promises to cut gas prices by 40% while simultaneously ramping up domestic production, including from costly oil and gas sources – two goals at odds with each other.
Still, Trump has shown a knack for pragmatism and political agility. We saw this in his handling of China trade policy, where he pivoted multiple times to secure perceived wins. May brought several achievements he could claim – domestically, a reduction in drug prices, a critical issue for many Americans; internationally, preliminary efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine conflict. His trip to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, along with the agreements signed, further elevated his status at home and abroad.
Yet from what I observed of America’s infrastructure during my visit, it seems unlikely the country can regain its former domestic stature – at least not without sacrificing part of its expansive military footprint. Trying to rewind the clock on multiple fronts at once is an almost impossible endeavor. – Ibrahim Abdulaziz Al-Muhanna
Gaza is gasping Its final breaths
Al-Masry Al-Youm, Egypt, May 30
The situation in Gaza and the condition of its people have descended into the unimaginable. Destruction blankets the landscape; the dead, wounded, starving, and dehydrated are everywhere, while the political world looks on in silence and the humanitarian world cries out in anguish alongside those trapped in this catastrophe.
The Israeli occupation forces continue their campaign of devastation with impunity, unfazed by the growing chorus of condemnation from within Israeli society and from Jewish communities around the world which reject these violations of human rights.
As the Israeli military escalates its assault on Gaza, more than 100,000 Palestinians have been forcibly displaced into central Gaza City, fleeing the bombardment in the northern parts of the strip.
Once the cultural and economic heart of Palestinian life, Gaza City has been reduced to a chaotic sprawl of rubble and makeshift tents, where people now live without access to even the most basic necessities, surrounded by mountains of debris and despair.
In the midst of cries of hunger, thirst, and sickness, the specter of death looms over tens of thousands – especially children – as Israel’s relentless bombing campaign continues unabated. In recent days alone, more than 1,000 Palestinians, the majority of them women and children, have been killed by airstrikes and artillery barrages. The overall death toll, not counting the thousands still buried beneath the rubble, now exceeds 53,000 in what has become a 20-month campaign of extermination.
Reports from non-Arab media outlets have documented harrowing scenes of this ongoing tragedy, as Israel’s intensified aggression has coincided with an ongoing blockade of desperately needed humanitarian aid. According to these accounts, every street is crowded with displaced people living among garbage heaps and pools of sewage, swarming with flies and mosquitoes.
There is no clean water. No food. Nothing. Hunger gnaws at the population, and still, no meaningful assistance is reaching them. UN experts had long warned of an imminent famine engulfing the entire Gaza Strip, with UN food warehouses nearly depleted.
Despite the dire circumstances, humanitarian organizations have managed to keep some community kitchens running, producing around 300,000 meals a day.
Under mounting international pressure, Israel has recently permitted limited aid to trickle into Gaza following a total blockade imposed in March. But the United Nations continues to report that Israel is obstructing the entry of aid and that airstrikes persist even as supplies are being distributed. In the words of Secretary-General António Guterres, what has entered Gaza so far is “only a teaspoon,” when what is needed is a deluge.
The suffering is especially acute for the sick and wounded, with most hospitals in northern Gaza bombed out of operation, and the few remaining ones overwhelmed and unable to cope.
This cannot be described as war; it is, by every measure, a genocide of civilians, carried out under the justification that Hamas is embedded among the population.
Gaza is gasping its final breaths, and its people – joined by those of us who stand in solidarity – are left to say what the world’s silence has made clear: “No one cares if we all die. This is a world built on deception and hypocrisy, one that calls itself civilized and humane but chooses to see with only one eye.”– The Rev. Rafic Greiche, head, Egyptian Coptic Church press office
Israel: A conflict between politicians and military personnel
Al-Ittihad, UAE, May 31
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to appoint Maj.-Gen. David Zini as the new head of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), in direct defiance of the state-attorney’s ruling barring him from the role, signals a looming confrontation between Israel’s political-military establishment and its judiciary.
This marks a new escalation in the ongoing power struggle among Israel’s key institutions – revolving around Netanyahu himself, who seeks to consolidate power and impose a singular national direction under his leadership.
The clash between the judiciary, the government, and Netanyahu remains unresolved, largely due to the prime minister’s combative style and long-standing expertise in maneuvering around institutional restraints, blocking legislation that might limit his authority, and reshuffling priorities within his own cabinet.
In response, ministers loyal to Netanyahu have adopted a clear, unified stance to neutralize any effort by the attorney-general to intervene – not only in matters of military appointments, particularly in the intelligence services, but also in the broader push by Netanyahu to politicize the judiciary.
The prime minister has now escalated the confrontation to the military level, where he has already managed to suppress dissent within the defense establishment. Those who oppose his directives are either removed or pushed to resign, forcing key figures in the military to capitulate.
This capitulation, however, has stirred significant unease among senior Israeli commanders, many of whom have aligned with broader protest and resistance movements in society, reinforcing speculation that the political and military balance of power may soon shift.
At the center of this turmoil is Gaza – its devastation, and how the war might end. Former military officials warn that Netanyahu’s style of governance is not only unsustainable but dangerously destabilizing and could drive Israel toward catastrophe.
Against this backdrop, the notion of ousting Netanyahu or reshaping the government has become increasingly central, particularly with parliamentary elections approaching.
Netanyahu, however, sees this as an opportunity to intensify his efforts, projecting strength to demonstrate his control over Israel’s direction.
He argues that his trial should not proceed amid such volatility and maintains that unresolved security and political decisions – many of which remain flash points of disagreement – should be handled exclusively under his authority.
Netanyahu is working to block alternative strategies from emerging at both the political and security levels, having successfully positioned himself as the indispensable figure in Israeli governance. He refuses to compromise his methods or present a conciliatory vision, claiming unapologetically that he alone is fit to lead.
Meanwhile, President Isaac Herzog has failed to offer meaningful guidance or foster consensus for a national dialogue, underscoring the depth of Israel’s internal divisions.
These tensions are unlikely to ease before the elections, especially as Netanyahu cements his hold over the current ruling coalition. After capitulating to nearly all demands from Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, Netanyahu has ensured the coalition’s continued stability.
The opposition, led by Yair Lapid, remains fragmented and weak, lacking a unified platform. Neither Lapid nor Benny Gantz, both contenders for leadership, currently enjoys significant public support. Netanyahu continues to outmaneuver them all, sidelining rivals and consolidating control.
For now, no credible challenge has emerged to his war management, even though deep questions persist over Israel’s long-term objectives in Gaza.
Military operations will soon give way to a more politically sensitive phase: who will govern Gaza, how Hamas will be dismantled, and what political or security framework Israel intends to impose. These unresolved issues have exposed friction within the IDF general staff over priorities and roles, fueling a sustained but quiet power struggle between the military and political echelons.
Until these matters are clarified, Netanyahu remains the primary political beneficiary, with opinion polls continuing to favor him.
One development that should not be overlooked is the US administration’s recent reengagement with Israel’s domestic political scene.
Washington has begun establishing lines of communication not only with former prime minister Naftali Bennett but also with Lapid and Gantz, signaling a readiness to reassess its options should a coalition realignment become necessary.
Netanyahu is acutely aware of these moves and remains determined to maintain a firm grip on power, adapting his tactics while working relentlessly to bring all internal factions under his control. – Tarek Fahmy
Has the world come to terms with the Gaza genocide?
Al-Watan, Saudi Arabia, May 27
The world is seething – angry, enraged, oppressed, provoked, and helpless – in the face of the horrors unfolding in the Gaza Strip. And yet, it seems resigned to a fate authored by the minds of brutal extremists and enabled by the Israeli war machine.
Resigned, perhaps, because the US and other Western powers have not objected to Israel’s warfare. This warfare uses advanced weaponry, deep-penetration bombs, and artificial intelligence not to fight terrorism, but to uproot Palestinians from their homes, level Gaza’s buildings, hospitals, schools, and mosques, reduce its heritage to rubble, and erase any trace of its people’s history, presence, or rights to the land.
Nearly 20 months into the war, Israel articulates its objectives openly and carries them out with daily massacres – many targeting women and children. On Saturday, May 24, pediatrician Alaa Al-Najjar arrived at work at the Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Yunis. Minutes later, the bodies of nine of her children were delivered to the same facility, killed by an Israeli missile. Her husband and 10th child were injured. This is but one example of how entire families have been erased.
Nearly two million Gazans are now corralled into a tiny enclave in the Strip’s southwest corner – effectively a concentration camp – before being killed or deported. Israeli officials do not shy away from invoking the term “Final Solution,” echoing the Nazi terminology once used to exterminate Jews.
It is no longer a secret: The plan is to annihilate the people of Gaza, to erase it from the map of Palestine.
Major world powers have failed to act despite mounting evidence of a campaign that bears the hallmarks of genocide – signs they refuse to acknowledge even now.
Washington and its allies have endorsed Israel’s “right to self-defense,” armed it with the world’s deadliest weapons, and watched them rain down on civilians under the familiar justification that Hamas and other militants were hiding among the population.
These same allies have shielded Israel at the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice. When South Africa brought a genocide case against Israel, the US responded with hostility.
President Donald Trump even orchestrated a smear campaign against South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, promoting a doctored video that falsely accused South Africa of committing atrocities against white farmers. When the footage was later traced to the Congo, the White House offered no correction, let alone an apology. What mattered was silencing the South African leader – truth be damned.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his inner circle ran circles around the previous American administration, exploiting its loyalty and sabotaging every proposal for postwar planning. Israel could not imagine an end to this war, with Gazans still inhabiting Gaza.
Days into his presidency, Trump eagerly adopted a plan to displace Gaza’s population, hailing it as a natural outcome of Israel’s gains. Though he tempered his rhetoric after pushback from Arab allies, he never truly let the idea go.
To bolster Trump’s real estate vision for Gaza, Israeli forces are now methodically demolishing every standing structure.
In his latest statements, Netanyahu emphasized his intention to continue controlling the entire Strip “until the displacement of its residents in accordance with Trump’s plan,” which, in truth, is wholly Israeli in origin.
Netanyahu has also dismissed European criticism with characteristic disdain – criticism over both military conduct and Israel’s blockade of humanitarian aid as famine begins to claim children and the elderly.
While Germany continues to support Israel unflinchingly, other allies – Britain, France, Canada, and to a lesser extent Belgium – have begun to break their silence. London suspended trade talks and sanctioned settler-linked individuals.
Paris called for revisiting the EU-Israel partnership, and all three floated recognition of a Palestinian state. But while these gestures mark a rhetorical shift, they fall far short of halting military support, and thus remain toothless in the face of a bloodthirsty war machine.
After two Israeli Embassy staffers were killed in Washington, DC, by a man shouting “Free Palestine,” Israel’s propaganda apparatus seized the moment, accusing Europe of fueling antisemitism. Netanyahu equated the phrase “Free Palestine” with the Nazi chant “Heil Hitler.”
Despite reports of friction between Netanyahu and Trump, and rumors of US pressure to secure a ceasefire and prisoner deal, the Israeli delegation walked away from Doha negotiations with nothing to show. No sign of American pressure followed.
Instead, after a Trump-Netanyahu phone call, the Prime Minister’s Office reported that the US president reaffirmed his support for “securing the release of all hostages and the elimination of Hamas” – a clear signal that he rejected European objections and was doing nothing to restrain Israel. – Abdulwahab Badrakhan
Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb. All assertions, opinions, facts, and information presented in these articles are the sole responsibility of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of The Media Line, which assumes no responsibility for their content.