“Swift and unrelenting action.” That’s how US President Donald Trump described the first forty-three days of his second term during an address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night. In the longest presidential joint session speech in history, Trump touted his global tariff plans, spoke of “reclaiming” the Panama Canal with new US investments, promised to “wage war” on Mexican drug cartels, invited Greenland to join the United States, and pushed hard for a peace deal to end the war in Ukraine. We reached out to our experts for insight on the global implications of Trump’s remarks.
Click to jump to an expert analysis:
Josh Lipsky: Attention world—Trump is serious about tariffs
Matthew Kroenig: Trump’s promising shipbuilding proposal deserves more attention
John Herbst: Trump signals an end to his sparring with Zelenskyy
Leslie Shedd: Zelenskyy’s overtures to Trump should extend to congressional Republicans
Torrey Taussig: Trump needles Europe and portrays himself as neutral on Ukraine
Graham Brookie: Trump shouldn’t reject bipartisan wins such as the CHIPS Act
Landon Derentz: Trump’s praise for Japan and South Korea reveals an energy playbook for US allies
Thomas S. Warrick: Trump is right that border crossings are low today—but they are going to go up
Alex Plitsas: With his counterterrorism surprise, Trump shows that US-Pakistan cooperation continues
Daniel Fried: The highs and the lows of Trump’s power plays
Attention world—Trump is serious about tariffs
The most significant line on trade in the president’s address wasn’t about steel, aluminum, or farming. It was when Trump said tariffs are “about protecting the soul of our country.” These seven words should put the whole world on notice that Trump is serious about tariffs. To him, they are not just a negotiating tool. It is possible that, within the next several months, we could be facing a global trade war.
On Tuesday night, we heard more details—and more commitments—than ever before regarding the administration’s plans to shock the global trading system. It starts with the administration’s implementation earlier in the day of across-the-board tariffs on Mexico and Canada. It will continue next week (seemingly) with steel and aluminum tariffs on a range of “friends and foes” alike, as the president said—including the European Union.
But the biggest move—the one that will rip up the rules that have governed trade since the signing of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947—is the promise to levy reciprocal tariffs on every country in the world. Will Trump follow through? Will the markets react so strongly that he has to back off? That will be the question every country will be asking between now and April 2, the date when Trump said these reciprocal tariffs will go into effect. After tonight’s speech, the honest assessment is that you can’t afford to bet that what he previewed is just a negotiating position. Trump made clear: This is about more than economics.
—Josh Lipsky is the senior director of the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center and a former adviser to the International Monetary Fund.
Trump’s promising shipbuilding proposal deserves more attention
In the realm of defense and security, Trump reviewed several long-term priorities and early successes, including building a “Golden Dome” missile-defense shield for the United States, taking back the Panama Canal, and attempting to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine.
What was less noticed, but highly important, was the announcement of a new office of shipbuilding at the White House. The United States has long had the world’s most dominant navy, but the United States’ ability to produce naval vessels has atrophied greatly since the end of the Cold War and now pales in comparison to that of China—the United States’ foremost military rival. Indeed, the United States can only produce 1.3 submarines per year—far short of the Navy’s target of three. As a member of Congress, Mike Waltz introduced legislation to revitalize the United States’ shipbuilding capability. Now that he is national security advisor, it is reassuring to know that he will carry this important priority with him to the White House.
—Matthew Kroenig is vice president and senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. He previously served in the Department of Defense and the intelligence community during the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations.
Trump signals an end to his sparring with Zelenskyy
Trump’s speech was preceded by expectations that he would use the moment to discuss his approach toward Ukraine and policy to end Moscow’s war of aggression against the country, given Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s sharp public exchange with Trump and Vice President JD Vance in the Oval Office on February 28, the White House’s strategically problematic decision to pause military aid to Ukraine, and Zelenskyy’s social media post on Tuesday expressing regret for the miscommunication in the Oval Office. On Tuesday night, Trump did not disappoint.
Trump started by noting that the Biden administration’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan may have persuaded Russian President Vladimir Putin that his moment to strike against Ukraine had come. This was an indirect way of saying that Putin was responsible for starting the war on Ukraine and for Russia’s huge escalation in February 2022—a welcome improvement from his peculiar accusation earlier this month that Zelenskyy was somehow responsible for this war.
Trump noted that he had received a letter on Tuesday from Zelenskyy expressing Ukraine’s readiness to join negotiations with Russia under Trump’s leadership—and to sign the mutually beneficial critical minerals agreement. Trump expressed gratitude for the letter and noted that he is convinced from his contact with Putin that Russia too is eager for peace, even though there is no public evidence that Moscow is ready to make the compromises necessary for a stable peace. Trump did mention his successful effort to bring home Marc Fogel, an American prisoner in Russia, who was in the gallery. Putin made a clever decision to release Fogel at the start of the new administration in an effort to encourage Trump to approach Russia with kid gloves in peace negotiations. But Trump’s warm description of the Zelenskyy letter suggests that the sparring with the Ukrainian leader is behind us. The pause on US military aid to Ukraine likely will not be with us long. If the pause lingers, then Trump’s stated intent to broker a stable peace will look questionable.
—John E. Herbst is the senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and a former US ambassador to Ukraine.
Zelenskyy’s overtures to Trump should extend to congressional Republicans
There is still strong bipartisan, bicameral support for Ukraine in the US Congress. But that support has taken a hit over the last week in the wake of the disastrous Oval Office meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy. There is growing frustration even among Ukraine’s most ardent Republican supporters over Zelenskyy’s inability to keep his temper in check during the meeting and his failure to quickly and explicitly apologize for how the meeting devolved. His latest overtures to Trump, including a social media post on Tuesday afternoon expressing his regret and a letter he sent to the president ahead of his joint address to Congress, thankfully seem to have helped mend the relationship.
The general consensus is that even though the minerals deal was not announced Tuesday night during the speech, it will be announced in the coming days. This deal creates an economic incentive—on top of the already existing moral incentive and national security incentive—for the United States to remain fully committed to a Ukraine free from long-term Russian aggression.
But more needs to be done to mend Zelenskyy’s relationship with Republicans on Capitol Hill. Republicans have risked their own political capital with the Republican base and with some people inside the White House to support Ukraine over the last three years. Many now feel spurned by Zelenskyy. These are his biggest champions who helped to get the supplemental spending package across the finish line last year. The Oval Office meeting had repercussions for their credibility. Now is the time for Zelenskyy to reach out to those members and make sure they know he is committed to finding a solution that ensures continued US support for the sake of his people and the security of the world.
I don’t judge the level of support for an issue based on who was clapping at which lines in the president’s speech on Tuesday night. What matters is who is with Ukraine when it really counts. Like almost every issue in Washington over time, Ukraine has become politicized. But at the end of the day, I agree with the assessment of Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), who said last month that there remains an “outcome-determinative number of Members of the United States Congress, from both parties and in both Chambers, who are ready, willing, and able to do whatever it takes” to ensure Putin does not benefit from his brutal war of aggression. If Democrats truly care about helping Ukraine and not politicizing this issue for their own personal gain, they will encourage Ukraine to sign the minerals deal and get on board with Trump’s plan for peace. That is the only game in town right now. Furthering the notion that Ukraine is a Republican-versus-Democrat issue only hurts Ukraine.
—Leslie Shedd is a nonresident fellow at the Eurasia Center and former senior advisor to members of the US Congress, and US senatorial and presidential candidates.
Trump needles Europe and portrays himself as neutral on Ukraine
Trump didn’t raise Europe or the war in Ukraine until over ninety minutes into his speech. When he did get to the region, his comments were short but sharp. He first signaled his support for Greenland’s self-determination before threatening to seize it, stating “one way or the other, we’re going to get it.” These comments are sure to raise alarm bells in Greenland and Denmark.
The president then repeated his known criticisms of Europe, including not taking its own defense seriously and passing the burden of the Ukraine crisis onto the United States. In this critique, he restated inaccurate figures of US and European support for Ukraine. Otherwise, Europe—as the United States’ largest trading partner, largest investor, and largest network of allies—was largely ignored (likely to the relief of many European officials).
In addressing the war in Ukraine, the president looked to portray himself as a peacemaker and a neutral arbiter. Trump read verbatim a letter he received earlier that day from Zelenskyy indicating Ukraine’s readiness to commence negotiations with Russia and to sign the critical minerals agreement with the United States. While Trump appeared to be lowering the temperature of his public feud with Zelenskyy, he missed an opportunity to announce a restart of US military assistance to Ukraine.
—Torrey Taussig is a director and senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Transatlantic Security Initiative in the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. Previously, she was a director for European affairs on the National Security Council.
Trump shouldn’t reject bipartisan wins such as the CHIPS Act
To compete effectively in an era of increasing geopolitical competition and rapid technological change, long-term planning and building on bipartisan accomplishments is essential.
For example, the Trump administration announced this week that Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC)—the world’s largest maker of advanced semiconductors—will invest one hundred billion dollars in further fabrication capability in the United States. This effort began in the first Trump administration, which lobbied TSMC to build more in the United States to ensure supply-chain resilience that has enabled the booming artificial-intelligence economy. The Biden administration built on that work by passing the bipartisan CHIPS Act, which—among many other things—paved the way for an initial $65 billion investment by TSMC to begin building manufacturing capability in the United States, including plants that are already producing 4 nanometer chips reportedly for companies such as Apple, NVIDIA, and Qualcomm.
The facts of US policy on semiconductors show a story of continuity and building momentum. Trump could tell that real success story. But he instead used his address to Congress to disparage his predecessor’s policy, which built on his own, by calling the CHIPS Act a “horrible, horrible thing.” The United States has a generational opportunity to continue building on a popular agenda to maintain the United States’ technical edge, but it will require working together across party lines and industry segments.
—Graham Brookie is the Atlantic Council’s vice president for technology programs and strategy. He previously served in various positions at the White House and National Security Council.
Trump’s praise for Japan and South Korea reveals an energy playbook for US allies
Trump’s brief reflections on energy policy in his remarks to Congress on Tuesday night reinforced his administration’s domestic ambition for leveraging US energy resources to drive economic growth, while also outlining a framework for constructive engagement with foreign partners. Though cloaked in antipathy for the policies of the prior administration, Trump’s emphasis on new oil and gas leases, pipeline construction, and the economic viability of power plants underscore that mobilizing private sector investment in energy infrastructure is a mainstay of the administration’s broader economic strategy, including efforts to lower inflation.
In highlighting his executive order declaring a national energy emergency from January, Trump is signaling his intent to supercharge the traditional Republican focus on deregulation in pursuit of an energy landscape that reinforces US autonomy and strengthens US geopolitical influence through energy exports.
That Trump conveyed this perspective in the context of Japan and South Korea’s interest in a liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in Alaska demonstrates that there is room for partners and allies to join in the president’s plans for expanding domestic oil, gas, and mineral production across an ambitious list of projects. Even though the US trade deficit with Japan and South Korea collectively exceeds $120 billion, the two countries have nonetheless found themselves on the right side of an assertive Trump administration tariff regime. It’s a testament to other allies and partners that US economic pressure can be allayed through investment in the United States that lowers trade deficits and bolsters alliances against China.
—Landon Derentz is senior director and Morningstar Chair for Global Energy Security at the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center. He previously served as director for energy at the White House.
Trump is right that border crossings are low today—but they are going to go up
There is a danger in believing too much in your own press clippings. Trump took pride in the low number of “illegal border crossings” in February, which he attributed to declaring a national emergency on the southern border and deploying the US military to help the Border Patrol. The Border Patrol apprehended 8,326 people on the US side of the southwest border in February. That is a record low monthly total since these statistics were first recorded in 2000, but the number is all but certain to go up. Here is a prediction: After a few months of relatively low numbers at the southwest border, apprehensions will increase later this year.
The cartels that control human smuggling across the Mexico-US border can throttle the numbers up and down. When the United States changes its policy, as happened in May 2023 when the US government formally ended the COVID-19 pandemic, numbers went down in June only to go back up the next month. Moreover, February is often, but not always, a relatively slow month for unauthorized border crossings—and numbers vary wildly from month to month, as shown in this graph from Axios using official Customs and Border Protection data.
Mexico’s policy decisions also make a big difference. Mexican cooperation can drive down unauthorized border crossings, as was the case in June 2024 during the Biden administration. Trump’s tariffs on Mexico could incentivize Mexico to keep numbers down—but it could have the opposite effect. Trump’s implicit threat to use the US military against the cartels is another potential flashpoint that could affect Mexico’s cooperation.
With a government shutdown possible in two weeks, Trump asked Congress Tuesday night for billions of dollars to carry out his mass deportation program and further discourage migrants from making the journey north. Border Patrol would keep working during a shutdown, but the expansion of the capacity to deport millions of people would be delayed. Trump’s divisive language Tuesday night may discourage Democratic cooperation unless Trump agrees to fund other programs to attract Democratic votes.
In the Democratic response on Tuesday night, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) struck a bipartisan tone. It was Slotkin, not Trump, who invoked former President Ronald Reagan’s vision that “required America to combine our military and economic might with moral clarity.” Slotkin speaks for national security Democrats in arguing that while border security is important, so is fixing the United States’ broken immigration and asylum system. This contrast between the parties is likely to become clearer in the next few months.
—Thomas S. Warrick is the director of the Future of DHS project at the Atlantic Council Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. He previously served as deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism policy at the US Department of Homeland Security.
With his counterterrorism surprise, Trump shows that US-Pakistan cooperation continues
Trump and his administration have been very vocal and public about efforts to designate drug cartels as terrorist organizations and to disrupt their human and narcotics smuggling operations into the United States, which have had deadly consequences. By comparison, the president has been very circumspect about other areas of counterterrorism, particularly when it comes to Central Asia, where there have been reports of a resurgence of terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and transnational terrorist groups operating in the region.
However, Trump revealed Tuesday night that the United States had apprehended Mohammad Sharifullah, the “top terrorist responsible” for the Abbey Gate suicide bombing at the Kabul airport during the US withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021. That attack killed thirteen American service members and injured many more along with nearly two hundred Afghan civilians. This was important for a few reasons.
First, it sends a message to terrorist groups who may have thought they would have more freedom of movement, due to Trump’s desire to withdraw from Afghanistan and his “America first” foreign policy, that they will be targeted or apprehended. Second, it speaks to the importance of liaising with foreign intelligence services and continued cooperation with Pakistan, which the president thanked publicly during his speech and with which the Central Intelligence Agency is said to have conducted a joint raid. Third, it underscores Pakistan’s willingness to work with the Trump administration despite a recent announcement that the United States would increase military sales to India by “many billions” and a pathway to India acquiring F-35 fighter jets.
—Alex Plitsas is a nonresident senior fellow with the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative, the head of the Atlantic Council’s Counterterrorism Project, and a former chief of sensitive activities for special operations and combating terrorism in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
The highs and the lows of Trump’s power plays
First, good news but with a hitch: Trump’s March 4 address to a joint session of Congress included words of reconciliation with Zelenskyy, who hours before had offered a statement of support for Trump’s efforts to end Russia’s war in Ukraine and of regret for the blowup in the Oval Office the previous Friday. The Trump administration should have followed by resuming military assistance and intelligence cooperation, both of which the United States suspended to put pressure on Zelenskyy. That would clear the way for the United States to work with Ukraine and Europe to deal with the real obstacle to ending the war: Putin, who appears to have been enjoying the spectacle of the United States quarreling with its friends and allies. Instead, however, the administration has reportedly said it will continue to withhold this support until a date is set for talks with the Russians, a move that gives the Kremlin every incentive to slow walk the process. Hopefully, the manifest weakness of this position will generate a rethink and reversal.
In another sort-of positive gesture, Trump boasted that US efforts to “reclaim” the Panama Canal were advancing by means of a US company (BlackRock, though Trump did not name it) purchasing key ports at either end of the canal from a Hong Kong company. That’s hopeful because it suggests that rather than invade Panama to seize the canal, Trump might call it a win if key canal-related infrastructure were in US hands rather than Chinese hands. That may be a rough way to achieve a good deal.
Other Trump foreign policy moves in the speech are more questionable or downright bad. His threat to impose worldwide retaliatory tariffs could in practice mean tough bargaining, leading to some set of deals. But it also could easily lead to a trade war, with retaliation disrupting supply chains, fueling inflation, and slowing investment into the United States. Trump’s April 2 deadline may be a negotiating ploy, but the threat of economic nationalism may be a brake on growth when the US economy is already showing signs of slowing. Trump is often more apt to threaten than follow through and deal with the consequences. But bad consequences may follow, given the tariffs imposed already on Canada and Mexico.
Shamefully and tellingly, Trump repeated his threat to seize Greenland. He tried to show regard for the views of Greenlanders themselves. (“If you [Greenlanders] choose, we welcome you into the United States of America.”) But he quickly followed with “We need it [Greenland] … and one way or the other, we’re going to get it.” The threat, with its nineteenth-century imperial style, advances no US interest. Denmark, responsible for Greenland’s foreign policy, has made clear that it would be glad to accommodate the United States’ military or commercial interests in Greenland. In fact, the United States has made no concrete requests about Greenland.
Therein lies the tell: Trump has exhibited scant regard for the US-led system of alliances and partnerships rooted in common values that smooth the advance of US interests in ways that benefit both sides. The United States could obtain what it says it wants in Greenland by, well, asking. But that is not Trump’s way: at his worst, he prefers to speak of and threaten raw power. If implemented, that is the nineteenth-century great power way, and it is Putin’s way. The way the United States rose to global leadership in the “American century” was different—exceptional, actually—and it served the United States and the free world well. Trump seems to have little patience for that approach.
Trump’s address to Congress did not mark a final US commitment to act as a typical great power bully. It is possible that Trump will use bullying tactics to achieve specific goals but not push a destructive agenda or in the end make a bad deal with Putin over Ukraine. But the absence of an overarching international vision based on values, and the apparent default to simple power and zero-sum thinking, warns of strife with friends and bad deals with adversaries. The address to Congress was not all bad. But it was a warning of a problematic strategy that would ill serve the country and the free world.
—Daniel Fried is the Weiser Family distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council and former US assistant secretary of state for Europe.
Further reading
Tue, Mar 4, 2025
Wall Street is finally waking up to Trump’s tariff policy
New Atlanticist By Josh Lipsky
Financial markets are beginning to react after the United States implemented tariffs on its three largest trading partners on Monday.
Mon, Mar 3, 2025
To tackle China-enabled drug cartels in Mexico, Trump will need military authorization
New Atlanticist By
An authorization to use military force against Mexican drug cartels would unite various government agencies in a coordinated effort to combat a major threat to US national security.
Sun, Mar 2, 2025
Zelenskyy and Europe confront the first contours of the Trump World Order
Inflection Points By Frederick Kempe
The Ukrainian president’s tempestuous recent meeting at the White House was a window into a larger transformation of global order by the US president.
Image: US President Donald Trump gestures as he speaks during an address to a joint session of Congress at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on March 4, 2025. MANDEL NGAN/Pool via REUTERS