Trump and His First 100 Days: What to Expect Next?

Sergiu Ceban

The ‘deal diplomacy’ of the current White House administration, if successful in ending the war in Ukraine, could be expanded to address other areas of instability in the former USSR

Today marks exactly one hundred days of Donald Trump’s presidency. He has already declared himself ‘the most effective American leader in history’, even surpassing Franklin Roosevelt, who established the tradition of reporting on the first hundred days. However, despite such ambitious claims, the U.S. president is facing increasing harsh criticism at home – and not without reason. When forecasting the future prospects of the current U.S. administration, it is important to keep in mind that, for the first time in six years, the Republicans control not only the White House but also both chambers of Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Holding full power gives the Republican Party, led by Trump, the ability not only to voice their ideas but also to implement them through corresponding legislative acts. The U.S. president himself, I repeat, considers the first stretch of his second term to be very successful. During this time, he has signed a record number of executive orders – around 140 – managing to initiate cuts in government spending, including shutting down USAID, raising and suspending import tariffs on foreign goods, renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of the Americas, recognizing only two genders, and declassifying documents related to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. In international affairs, Trump has begun negotiations with Iran and is advancing both the Ukrainian and the Israeli-Palestinian peace processes. Yet, despite all this activity, Trump’s approval ratings so far are not particularly impressive. Given the still relatively high level of public expectations, it’s crucial for the White House in the coming months to demonstrate success both domestically and internationally. At the very least, it should attempt to reach agreements on Ukraine and Iran, as well as bring an end to trade wars in the interest of the United States. Otherwise, the current administration’s approval ratings will continue to decline, and by early 2026, Trump will have little time for any of the above, as he’ll need to focus on the battle for control of Congress. For this reason, the U.S. president’s inner circle is operating on several ‘chessboards’ at once, something clearly reflected in the travel itinerary of Trump’s close ally, Steven Witkoff. At the same time, it is reasonable to assume that the majority of U.S. diplomatic efforts are taking place behind the scenes, far from the public eye. It wouldn’t be surprising if certain American envoys have already made confidential visits to Chisinau. While the Donald Trump administration is still preparing to present its report on the work done so far, some U.S. officials have hinted that the White House has already nearly completed its plan for the next 100 days of the presidency. The focus is expected to be on trade agreements, peace negotiations, and the introduction of entry bans for citizens from several countries. For Moldova, of course, the most important thing is to understand what trajectory the Russia-Ukraine conflict will take and what exactly is being planned in terms of its resolution. Judging by statements from U.S. officials, and from Trump himself, Washington still appears determined to bring this war to an end in the very near future. At the same time, media leaks suggest that the bigest concessions are expected not from Moscow, but from Kyiv. Last week, for the first time in months, there was a sense that a deal between Ukraine and Russia was closer than ever. Russia’s unilateral declaration of an Easter ceasefire, followed by consultations in Paris involving delegations from the U.S., France, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine, served as a signal that compromise solutions were approaching. However, the subsequent diplomatic fiasco in London, coupled with statements made by the Ukrainian leadership shortly beforehand, ultimately brought the situation back to square one, nearly derailing the diplomatic efforts of Trump and his team. Meanwhile, international media were provided with materials about the conditions for peace allegedly put forward by the U.S. The core of these conditions, which boils down to the need for Kyiv to accept the reality created by the results of the conflict, came as a thunderbolt to Western public opinion. In particular, it concerns the White House’s desire to finally resolve the ‘Crimea issue’, rather than leaving it aside, as was outlined in the Istanbul agreements. Additionally, Ukrainian authorities are being asked to accept the de facto loss of territories in four regions and abandon any attempts to regain them by military means. Realizing that society and the military might not accept such a peace deal, Ukraine began to lose momentum and diplomatic initiative. The Kremlin, in turn, continues to step up peacekeeping narratives, at times expressing its readiness for direct negotiations with Kyiv without any preconditions, and at other times proposing yet another ceasefire, this time in May, timed with Victory Day, hinting at the shared sacred significance of this date for the peoples of both nations. Under the current circumstances, it is becoming clear that for Kyiv, ending the war is turning into a far greater challenge than continuing it. In addition to being asked to accept terms that strongly resemble capitulation, Volodymyr Zelensky is being pressured to revoke his 2022 decree, which endorsed the National Security and Defense Council’s decision ruling out negotiations with Putin. If Kyiv’s political stance eventually breaks, everything could then follow an irreversible path: if you gave in once, you’ll be expected to keep giving in. For now, unfortunately, no one knows where the Trump administration’s diplomacy will lead. It may result in a ceasefire under terms unfavorable to Ukraine, which could eventually turn into an equally disadvantageous peace agreement. At the same time, it is also possible that Kyiv might refuse to accept such an arrangement altogether, ultimately forcing the United States to withdraw from the negotiation process in the hope that public opinion will compel the White House to continue supporting Ukraine, which remains under relentless Russian attacks. Undoubtedly, the Kremlin’s ambitions go far beyond Ukraine. In addition to seeking the demilitarization of its neighbor, citing existential threats to its own security, it also demands the withdrawal of all foreign military contingents from the countries of the former Warsaw Pact. Within the framework of Moscow’s geopolitical objectives, the de-westernization of the post-Soviet space is also of key importance. This strategy aims to create a deep buffer zone between Russia and Central Europe, allowing it to pursue its economic and political interests more freely. In this way, Russia seeks to minimize the military-political risks it identifies in accordance with its own security doctrine. The trends and approaches observed in the Russian-Ukrainian settlement process are a source of serious concern for Chisinau and other capitals of the former Soviet republics. U.S. attempts to secure recognition of Russia’s status over the Crimean Peninsula would deal a severe blow to international law and could open a ‘Pandora’s box’ along the entire perimeter of the former USSR. Unfortunately, ‘deal diplomacy’ offers an example of how the interests and sovereignty of weaker states lose their significance and are sacrificed in favor of broader international agreements. We won’t rush to draw conclusions or suggest that, three decades later, borders within the CIS are about to change. However, if Washington and Moscow succeed in establishing effective diplomatic cooperation, it’s quite possible that by Donald Trump’s second hundred days in office, a few more promissing deals could be on the negotiating table – for example, regarding Moldova, Georgia, or Armenia with Azerbaijan.