May 12, 2025 • 27 mins
As the Trump presidency enters its second 100 days, what should we expect next?
The Trump administration has had arguably the busiest first 100 days since President Franklin Roosevelt’s first term. How will the White House handle the challenges of the next hundred days, including tax legislation, the next phase of DOGE, and pivotal court cases regarding the executive branch’s autonomy?
Join Steve Odland and guest David K. Young, president of the Committee for Economic Development, the public policy center of The Conference Board (CED), on what the coming months hold for the Trump presidency.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Steve Odland (00:00):
Welcome to C-Suite Perspectives, a signature
series by The Conference Board.
I'm Steve Odland from The ConferenceBoard and the host of this series.
And in today's discussion, we'regoing to talk about the next hundred
days of the US administration.
What's ahead for thecountry and the world?
Joining me today is David K. Young,the president of The Conference
(00:20):
Board's public policy center, theCommittee for Economic Development.
David, welcome.
David Young (00:26):
Thanks, Steve.
Great to be back.
Steve Odland (00:28):
So everybody's talking about the first hundred days, but
that's just like history, David.
And so you really do have to pivot hereand start saying, "OK, where's this
going to take us?" Cause there's beenso much activity that's happened here.
But it's all just started.
I don't think anything's really,truly, been finished or completed
or you can check it off.
The question is, what's theagenda for the next hundred days?
David Young (00:50):
Yeah, it's a very important question, and you're quite right.
There has been a flurry of activity inthe first 100 days, potentially one of the
most busy and active first 100 days sinceFranklin Roosevelt took office in 1933.
But looking ahead, there are a varietyof very important and key policy areas
(01:12):
that I think will be instrumental.
So let me just list
out a few, and I want to
prioritize what I think potentially is the most important.
So, policy areas includingtax, tariffs, regulation,
immigration, and foreign policy.
So of those five, what do wethink is the most important?
I think it very much depends on yourvantage point, but domestically,
(01:37):
there is a very strong case for themost important potentially, to be
the tax bill and the debt ceiling.
So provisions, Steve, of the2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,
expires at the end of this year.
If nothing is done, personalincome tax rates will go up.
And this is something that Congress, themajority of which, doesn't really want.
(01:59):
The president would like to see as cleanan extension as possible, as quickly as
possible, combined with increased fundingfor key priorities such as immigration.
But this will have to be combined with anincrease in the debt ceiling through the
reconciliation process in Congress toprevent government default on the debt.
(02:23):
Just to note, reconciliation was alsoused to pass the tax bill in 2017.
There's been a lot of chatter andconversations around reconciliation,
so I think it's just important also forme to take a moment and clarify what
actually is this reconciliation process.
So reconciliation means that the billmay pass the Senate with only 51 votes,
(02:49):
rather than the usual 60 necessary toinvoke cloture and prevent a filibuster.
Because the Republicans have 53 votesin the Senate, using reconciliation
means that the Republicans would beable to enact the bill on their own
without needing Democratic support.
(03:09):
It's very unclear, however, forhow long the debt ceiling would
be extended or by what amount itwould have to be raised here, Steve.
It would presumably have to be raisedto at least cover what the Congressional
Budget Office says is the cost of thetax bill, once it scores an actual
(03:29):
bill that is admitted to Congress.
Alternatively, here, Congress couldsimply decide to raise the debt ceiling
to whatever debt it is on a certaindate, for instance, the end of the
president's term on January 20, 2029.
Congress did something similar in theFiscal Responsibility Act in 2021.
(03:53):
The timing of this action on the taxbill and the debt ceiling will depend in
part on the government's determinationof the X date for default, perhaps
aided by market pressures, as well.
So some financial services companiesare estimating the X date for July,
early August, but it also depends onhow much the government has actually
(04:15):
raised from April 15, and we should havethose figures out in the coming weeks.
Steve Odland (04:21):
We should point out that most nations don't have a debt ceiling
and don't go through this process becauseyou have to raise the ceiling to meet
the deficits that are being incurred.
So it's not really a choice.
You spend the money, you'vegot to raise the debt ceiling.
But politicians on both sides of theaisle have used the debt ceiling increase
through Congress to demand other things.
(04:43):
And Both sides have heldthe other side hostage.
It's really an awful way to do business.
But you're right, that's there.
But I think it's interesting thatyou said the tax bill and the
debt ceiling, because I think ifyou picked up any American newspaper
today or any source of media, allyou would hear about is tariffs.
So tariffs are secondary in your mind.
David Young (05:06):
I think you have to deal with immediate domestic issues before
turning to international relations.
They're both important.
They're not necessarily mutuallyexclusive, but I think you have to
prioritize what's happening hereat home in the US and then look
at how to prioritize other issues.
Steve Odland (05:26):
But stating another way, the debt ceiling and this
tax bill is a bigger alligator.
There is this snapping alligatorthere on the tariffs because
we've started this whole thing.
And whether you likeit or not, it started.
And there's reported to be, I don'tknow, upwards to 70 different countries
that are engaged in discussions here.
And there's a lot ofhappy talk around it.
(05:47):
Nothing's really happened yet.
But that kind of needs to get done,you got to start knocking some of these
off to normalize trade, don't you?
And to make sure that our supplychain doesn't go wiggy on us.
David Young (05:57):
Yeah, you are absolutely right.
And it is somewhat of an unclearperiod, as, Steve, we're now in this
90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs.
That 90 days ends on July 9, and manyof the major trading partners, if
not all, of the trading partners willwant to reach agreements to reduce
them or suspend them by this time.
(06:20):
It remains unclear, to be honest, whatconcessions other countries will have
to make, the extent to which otherissues, including the impact and role of
geopolitics, will be considered and theadministration's willingness to accept
promises of investments or US exports.
The administration, as you said, I'vegot the number: Just over 60 countries
(06:42):
that have requested negotiations withthe US with regards to trade and tariffs.
The vice president isout and about traveling.
He was in India seeking to negotiate anew bilateral trade agreement with India.
That could be a model for other countries.
Japan wants to negotiate a model,as well, so they're all vying to try
(07:03):
and figure out what is best for them.
Negotiations with the EU could be verydifficult, both on exports and on US
criticism of the EU Digital MarketsAct and the Digital Services Act.
But even with these agreements, we couldpotentially see more tariffs coming.
The administration has launchedinvestigations under Section 232 of the
(07:26):
Trade Expansion Act of 1962, preliminaryto imposing tariffs on critical minerals,
semiconductors, and related products,as well as pharmaceuticals and related
products like precursory chemicals.
Under this, they have 270 daysto investigate, but perhaps
this could conclude earlier.
(07:48):
The other thing we may see here, aswell, beyond just tariffs and trade
negotiations between countries, issectoral tariffs, as well, in this arena.
Steve Odland (07:59):
But you're hearing, especially with close allies like
Canada and Mexico, that therecould be some deals relatively soon,
maybe within the next hundred days.
Maybe they won't have inked every detail,but they will have a deal in hand.
You hear the same on UK, India,Vietnam, which is an important
alternative to China for manufacturing.
So there are some lights startingto shine at the end of the tunnel.
(08:23):
And so maybe in the nexthundred days, we can get a fair
number of these under underway.
You don't hear China in that.
China's probably not goingto be in the next hundred.
David Young (08:33):
Yeah.
You've seen, of all of them, Chinacome back the hardest, from their
retaliatory efforts, the hardest asit relates to other countries.
The other interesting thing, youmentioned Canada, they obviously
have a new prime minister.
Carney was in Washingtonthis week meeting with Trump.
And as we know as well, theUSMCA has to be renegotiated.
(08:55):
Quite a few variables out there.
And I think, again, a lot of thesecountries are wanting this resolved within
the next hundred days because the longerit goes, the more impact there is to
businesses and policies moving forward.
Steve Odland (09:10):
Yeah, and relations, which would be terrible.
It's one thing when you're dealingwith a geopolitical foe, it's different
when you're dealing with your closeallies, military and trade allies.
And the integrated supply chain in NorthAmerica is probably the most important,
situation that we've got to deal with.
But that's a lot to doin the next hundred days.
You also have this ticking clockof the midterm elections, which
(09:33):
are next year already, nextNovember, a year from this November.
But that season, the midterm season,kicks off in January, typically.
So really, we're in May.
You have probably six months to getall of these things resolved, all
of the important trade deals thatare up in the air, the tax bill,
as you said, and the debt ceiling.
(09:55):
So the next hundred days, Ithink that's why you positioned it
as urgent, for a lot of reasons.
The administration understands they'lllose the House or Senate or both if
they don't have this wrapped up in thenext hundred, 130 days or so, right?
David Young (10:11):
Yeah, you're exactly right.
And they will want to focus onshowing results by whatever key
performance indicators they have.
Notably, a little bit more securityand stability in policy, in decision
making, and also the markets.
Steve Odland (10:28):
Yeah.
Yeah, markets as well.
Now you have this whole DOGE thing,which is really interesting to watch.
People have been talking about tryingto take costs out of the government.
I think, if you went down the streetand you asked every citizen that
you saw, "Should we take costs outof the government?" I think the
majority would probably say yes.
You probably can't get two of them toagree on where to take the costs out.
(10:50):
And I think that's why this overlayof an independent look through
a DOGE vehicle is interesting.
Whether or not it's thebest way is to be seen.
But the key driver of that wasElon Musk, and now he's going to be
leaving this role and getting backto his knitting on his company.
So what happens to DOGEin the next hundred days?
David Young (11:11):
Yeah, it's a great question.
Just one thing to add herein terms of people agreeing.
You mentioned where they may agreeor disagree, but it's also, "How
do you go about making these cuts?"I think you're exactly right.
There aren't many people thatdisagree that the bureaucracy
is somewhat bloated and could bemore efficient and more effective.
And there are two dimensions aroundthe DOGE efforts: having the impact
(11:32):
that it hopes to have, which iswhere to make those cuts, but also
how to go about making those cuts.
So yeah, with regards to ElonMusk, yeah, he's leaving his
role in the administration.
Quite a bit of litigation continueson the DOGE efforts to reorganize
the government, including personnelreductions and efforts to end the
functions of entire agencies such asUSAID and also the Voice of America.
(11:56):
I think you should be able toexpect more court decisions, perhaps
even from the Supreme Court inthe next hundred days and beyond.
Now also, the DOGE effort isexpanding beyond just spending cuts.
It's expanding towardsthe area of regulation.
A good example here is all agencieshave been told to send lists of
regulations they wish to repeal tothe Office of Management and Budget
(12:21):
in coordination with the DOGE teamleads at each of those agencies.
This will lead to likely repeal ofmany regulations with significant
economic effects without using typicalnotice-and-comment rulemaking procedures.
So I think, yes, Elon Muskstarted the DOGE efforts.
He's very much spurred it and beenthe heartbeat of that organization.
(12:42):
But I think we should all anticipatethose efforts continuing to move
forward, as there's, as you saidat the beginning here, Steve, this
recognition and willingness to streamlinegovernment and increase efficiency
and effectiveness moving forward.
Steve Odland (12:56):
The involvement of the courts is largely due to the
administration's attempt to testthe boundaries on what belongs in
the executive branch versus whatbelongs in the legislative branch,
with obviously the judicial branchsitting in judgment of that.
But that's what most of these courtcases are about, saying, look, Congress
allocated these funds and turned itover to the executive branch to execute.
(13:20):
So the executive branch can't justdetermine unto their own not to
execute it, not to spend the money.
And so these are the testcases that are rattling through.
Now we have the end of the termcoming up at the end of June.
So lots of stuff to bedecided before then.
David Young (13:38):
Yes.
And just to just one point, just tocomment, I think you've seen, and this
is not just with Trump, it's almost withevery president, pushing the boundaries
of executive power and authority.
And obviously the US has its checksand balances, but there's always this
kind of gray area in terms of what canthe executive do, what can he not do?
And whether it's Trump, Biden,Obama, or whomever, they have always
(14:05):
pushed the boundaries with regards totheir level of authority and power.
With regards to the SupremeCourt, what else is on its docket?
It has a very active regular docketwith cases on, for instance, a proposed
religious charter school, Medicarepayments to hospitals, and criminal
law beyond its regular docket here.
(14:27):
It will almost certainly have to decidemajor cases concerning the powers of
the president, as we've mentioned,including cases on impoundment of
appropriated funds, whether the presidentcan shut an agency that was in fact
established by Congress, and whetherthe president has the power to fire
members of multi-member agencies suchas the FTC and also the Federal Reserve.
(14:53):
The court's term, just sowe know, ends around July 4.
Steve Odland (14:57):
Yeah, a good day for it, too.
We're talking about the next hundred days.
We're going to take a shortbreak and be right back.
Welcome back to C-Suite Perspectives.
I'm your host, Steve Odland,from The Conference Board.
I'm joined today by David Young, thepresident of The Conference Board's
public policy center, which is calledthe Committee for Economic Development.
(15:19):
So Davy, before the break, we weretalking about this challenge, or
this tension, between the executivebranch and the legislative branch.
And a lot of that's beingtested in the courts.
There's another tensionthat has broken forth.
But here again, it's not unique to thisadministration, and that's between the
Federal Reserve and the executive branch.
Talk about that tension andwhat the current issues are.
David Young (15:43):
Yeah.
Stepping back for a moment onthis, just to set the scene
with regards to this topic.
In regulation, the presidenthas taken a strong line.
First, issuing an executive orderto put independent regulatory
agencies, this is including theFederal Reserve, more directly
under the control of the president.
From this, he has then had the abilityto fire commissioners of independent
(16:07):
agencies, including two Democraticcommissioners on the FTC, and has, as
you mentioned, Steve, been threateningto fire the Fed Chairman Jerome Powell.
He does this under the theory ofthe unitary executive—essentially,
that these independent agencies nowcannot be truly independent, must in
fact report to the executive branch.
Steve Odland (16:30):
He did walk that back though, just to be clear.
He walked back the intent to fire theFed chair when the markets dropped.
David Young (16:37):
Yes.
Steve Odland (16:37):
Thereby giving away that what he was really doing is, he was
posturing and rattling swords here.
But he said he had nointention to do that.
So it is interesting to watch thestyle and the process here, but
he's acknowledged that one at least.
David Young (16:51):
Yeah, yeah, he sure did.
It is also important here tonote, and I find this really
fascinating with what he was doing.
It's not only legally verydifficult to make that decision,
but it's also difficult in marketterms, which you've alluded to.
Any movement in that direction wouldprompt market volatility, as it did.
Just so listeners understand this, and Ifind this part pretty interesting, just
(17:15):
around how difficult it could be in ascenario, should he go down this path.
The chair of the FederalReserve is appointed, yes, by
the president and confirmed bythe Senate to a four-year term.
The chair also serves as a member of theFed's Board of Governors, where, believe
it or not, he serves a 14-year term.
(17:38):
So Chair Powell's leadership endsin May 2026, but his seat on the
board does not expire until 2028.
So to remove the Fed chair, first,the president would have to remove
them from the Board of Governors.
And that is only allowed for cause.
It is a high bar, and there isno precedent set to date on that.
(18:01):
Cause is precisely defined as, let's say,misconduct, neglect of duty, incompetence,
or violation of ethical standards.
So removing the Fed chair,simply put, is a legal minefield.
In market terms, the Fed's powerrests on a simple idea, which is
(18:21):
independence from political pressure.
That's not just doctrine, let'sjust say, that's market gospel.
In short, threatening theFed doesn't soothe markets.
Rather, it spooks them, and actually,the result could be opposite to what the
administration actually wants to see.
So you could potentially see higher rates,weaker confidence, and market turmoil.
Steve Odland (18:44):
But he said he is not going to do it.
Just kidding, move along,nothing to see here.
But the reason that there's thetension is because interest rates
have remained high—discount rate,the Fed discount rates remain high.
Therefore, interest rates haveremained high, which means
mortgage rates have remained high,and that market has been tight.
And h e's saying, reducethe discount rate.
(19:07):
And the Fed is saying, not so fast,because there's all this volatility
and uncertainty created by the tariffs.
So there's almost acircular argument here.
But it is an issue, right?
It's almost a Catch-22.
You can't really jumpstartthe economy until the discount
rate starts to come down.
You can't do that until theeconomy, there's clarity here.
(19:28):
Hence the tension.
But there's also been this tension betweenthe Fed chair and almost every president.
Some have been less public aboutit, but it's always been out there.
David Young (19:39):
Yeah, always, or tension's always been out there.
Then also, Steve, to yourpoint, you mentioned these two
words, a circular argument.
I think it just goes to show howintertwined and interconnected everything
is, not just in politics and policy,but also connected to business.
Steve Odland (19:58):
Yeah.
Now, we were talking about tariffsbefore the break, and of course, that
is essentially a geo-economic issue,but it's also a geopolitical one.
There are other geopoliticalissues beyond this.
And hence you get into a wholelitany of issues in the South
China Sea, the potential blockadeof Taiwan, which they've been
practicing live fire exercises there.
(20:20):
You've got the spying going onin the polar region, including
Greenland by those adversaries.
You've got the construction ofRussian bases on the Finnish border
and in and around the Baltics, hencesaber-rattling that if Ukraine gets
settled, then you've got potentiallyto deal with a Baltic situation.
Lots and lots of concerns while atthe same time, our forces have been
(20:46):
diminishing, and so there's a needfor modernization of all of this.
And so if you stitch together all ofthese geopolitical issues, what do you
see happening in the next hundred days?
David Young (20:58):
Yeah.
So Steve, you're exactly right.
Lots of concerns.
And these concerns, as weknow, they're not static.
They are changing very rapidly.
Just a few things.
Before I mentioned some of thethings that have evolved just,
honestly, in the last 48 hours.
Beyond the efforts to end the warin Ukraine, which I'm delighted to
hear you'll be doing another podcaston in a little bit more detail,
(21:19):
we're obviously dealing with theefforts to avoid war with Iran.
Also, NATO has been a big topic ofmany administrations, but also
the second Trump administration.
The NATO summit, just so ourlisteners know, will occur
in late June in The Hague.
The administration will press hardfor European increases in defense
(21:41):
spending, while allies will be lookingfor signals as to the extent of the US'
future commitment to Europe and NATO.
Discussions over the military futureof Europe will likely intersect in
some way, with difficult negotiationsover tariffs with the EU, including
US' criticism of the Digital MarketsAct and the Digital Services Act.
(22:04):
European leaders will continue towant a strong US presence, I think,
both militarily and commercially.
You mentioned Asia, just briefly, if thereis the possibility of a Trump-Xi summit in
June, then US posture in the Asia-Pacificregion, as well as policy towards
Taiwan, will become more important.
(22:27):
I would also note that the report tothe president, which he requested on US
membership of international organizationsand conventions, is due in early August.
He's asking to see if they can bereformed to favor the US interest
in a slightly better way, or whetherthe US should withdraw or change
their commitment or relationship.
(22:49):
Obviously, we're seeing changes tomultilateral organizations from the US
perspective, including the World HealthOrganization, Paris Climate Agreements,
and a few other smaller UN bodies.
It is unclear if the report willlead to immediate US withdrawals
or begin a period of renegotiationswith affected organizations,
(23:12):
so time will tell on that side.
Interestingly, I do mentionmultilateral organizations, last
month, obviously, the World Bank andIMF held their spring meetings in DC.
And following those, SecretaryBessant has excluded withdrawal
from the World Bank and the IMF.
So there's not one blanketpolicy or statement coming
(23:33):
out of the administration.
It's very much on a case-by-case basis.
Two other important issues justto mention, and these have evolved
dramatically in the last couple days.
India-Pakistan, increased conflictand retaliation on that border front.
And while we hope for it not toescalate, it's not without possibilities.
(23:54):
And the other is Israel and Gaza.
Israel coming out recently this week,promising a concluding move with
regards to Gaza and using additionaltroops to take over the entire enclave.
So a variety of geopolitical andgeo-economic issues emerging, as
(24:15):
they always have done, which Ithink will continue to require
strong leadership from the US.
It's also interesting what the USis doing with regards to potentially
restructuring the US State Department.
Times do change.
Steve, you mentioned earlier,no one's going to disagree with
bureaucracy being a little bit slow.
(24:35):
And I think it is interesting,just given the pace of change,
what happens within business andgovernment, and especially geopolitics.
How do we make, and I think this willbe one of the interesting challenges
for the administration, how do theymake the US State Department more
effective, more agile, more responsiveto the fast-changing pace that we're
(24:55):
seeing within geopolitics today?
Steve Odland (24:57):
And last question, just wrapping up quickly, What do
you expect to see from Congressin the next hundred days?
David Young (25:03):
Yeah.
Beyond the tax bill and debtceiling, both of which will be top
of Congress's agenda for the nexthundred days, the 2026 budget.
The 12 budget bills will provide anopportunity for Congress to restore, if it
wishes, funding for programs and personnelcuts in the DOGE reorganization efforts.
In particular, Congress will have toconsider the proposed reorganization
(25:27):
of the State Department thatI've mentioned in foreign aid.
The budget bills offer Congress'sbest chance to potentially
reassert its power over the purse.
Let's not also forget here, bordersecurity, immigration, and other
issue areas that Trump ran hiscampaign on, one of which would be
(25:48):
the fentanyl drug crisis happeningin the US from the southern border.
Steve Odland (25:53):
The next hundred days, all delivered with
traditional British understatement.
David Young, thanks forbeing with us today.
David Young (26:00):
A pleasure, Steve.
Great to be here.
Appreciate it.
Steve Odland (26:02):
And thanks to all of you for listening to C-Suite Perspectives.
I'm Steve Odland, and this series has beenbrought to you by The Conference Board.
Welcome to C-Suite Perspectives, a signature
series by The Conference Board.
I'm Steve Odland from The ConferenceBoard and the host of this series.
And in today's discussion, we'regoing to talk about the next hundred
days of the US administration.
What's ahead for thecountry and the world?
Joining me today is David K. Young,the president of The Conference
(00:20):
Board's public policy center, theCommittee for Economic Development.
David, welcome.
David Young (00:26):
Thanks, Steve.
Great to be back.
Steve Odland (00:28):
So everybody's talking about the first hundred days, but
that's just like history, David.
And so you really do have to pivot hereand start saying, "OK, where's this
going to take us?" Cause there's beenso much activity that's happened here.
But it's all just started.
I don't think anything's really,truly, been finished or completed
or you can check it off.
The question is, what's theagenda for the next hundred days?
David Young (00:50):
Yeah, it's a very important question, and you're quite right.
There has been a flurry of activity inthe first 100 days, potentially one of the
most busy and active first 100 days sinceFranklin Roosevelt took office in 1933.
But looking ahead, there are a varietyof very important and key policy areas
(01:12):
that I think will be instrumental.
So let me just list
out a few, and I want to
prioritize what I think potentially is the most important.
So, policy areas includingtax, tariffs, regulation,
immigration, and foreign policy.
So of those five, what do wethink is the most important?
I think it very much depends on yourvantage point, but domestically,
(01:37):
there is a very strong case for themost important potentially, to be
the tax bill and the debt ceiling.
So provisions, Steve, of the2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,
expires at the end of this year.
If nothing is done, personalincome tax rates will go up.
And this is something that Congress, themajority of which, doesn't really want.
(01:59):
The president would like to see as cleanan extension as possible, as quickly as
possible, combined with increased fundingfor key priorities such as immigration.
But this will have to be combined with anincrease in the debt ceiling through the
reconciliation process in Congress toprevent government default on the debt.
(02:23):
Just to note, reconciliation was alsoused to pass the tax bill in 2017.
There's been a lot of chatter andconversations around reconciliation,
so I think it's just important also forme to take a moment and clarify what
actually is this reconciliation process.
So reconciliation means that the billmay pass the Senate with only 51 votes,
(02:49):
rather than the usual 60 necessary toinvoke cloture and prevent a filibuster.
Because the Republicans have 53 votesin the Senate, using reconciliation
means that the Republicans would beable to enact the bill on their own
without needing Democratic support.
(03:09):
It's very unclear, however, forhow long the debt ceiling would
be extended or by what amount itwould have to be raised here, Steve.
It would presumably have to be raisedto at least cover what the Congressional
Budget Office says is the cost of thetax bill, once it scores an actual
(03:29):
bill that is admitted to Congress.
Alternatively, here, Congress couldsimply decide to raise the debt ceiling
to whatever debt it is on a certaindate, for instance, the end of the
president's term on January 20, 2029.
Congress did something similar in theFiscal Responsibility Act in 2021.
(03:53):
The timing of this action on the taxbill and the debt ceiling will depend in
part on the government's determinationof the X date for default, perhaps
aided by market pressures, as well.
So some financial services companiesare estimating the X date for July,
early August, but it also depends onhow much the government has actually
(04:15):
raised from April 15, and we should havethose figures out in the coming weeks.
Steve Odland (04:21):
We should point out that most nations don't have a debt ceiling
and don't go through this process becauseyou have to raise the ceiling to meet
the deficits that are being incurred.
So it's not really a choice.
You spend the money, you'vegot to raise the debt ceiling.
But politicians on both sides of theaisle have used the debt ceiling increase
through Congress to demand other things.
(04:43):
And Both sides have heldthe other side hostage.
It's really an awful way to do business.
But you're right, that's there.
But I think it's interesting thatyou said the tax bill and the
debt ceiling, because I think ifyou picked up any American newspaper
today or any source of media, allyou would hear about is tariffs.
So tariffs are secondary in your mind.
David Young (05:06):
I think you have to deal with immediate domestic issues before
turning to international relations.
They're both important.
They're not necessarily mutuallyexclusive, but I think you have to
prioritize what's happening hereat home in the US and then look
at how to prioritize other issues.
Steve Odland (05:26):
But stating another way, the debt ceiling and this
tax bill is a bigger alligator.
There is this snapping alligatorthere on the tariffs because
we've started this whole thing.
And whether you likeit or not, it started.
And there's reported to be, I don'tknow, upwards to 70 different countries
that are engaged in discussions here.
And there's a lot ofhappy talk around it.
(05:47):
Nothing's really happened yet.
But that kind of needs to get done,you got to start knocking some of these
off to normalize trade, don't you?
And to make sure that our supplychain doesn't go wiggy on us.
David Young (05:57):
Yeah, you are absolutely right.
And it is somewhat of an unclearperiod, as, Steve, we're now in this
90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs.
That 90 days ends on July 9, and manyof the major trading partners, if
not all, of the trading partners willwant to reach agreements to reduce
them or suspend them by this time.
(06:20):
It remains unclear, to be honest, whatconcessions other countries will have
to make, the extent to which otherissues, including the impact and role of
geopolitics, will be considered and theadministration's willingness to accept
promises of investments or US exports.
The administration, as you said, I'vegot the number: Just over 60 countries
(06:42):
that have requested negotiations withthe US with regards to trade and tariffs.
The vice president isout and about traveling.
He was in India seeking to negotiate anew bilateral trade agreement with India.
That could be a model for other countries.
Japan wants to negotiate a model,as well, so they're all vying to try
(07:03):
and figure out what is best for them.
Negotiations with the EU could be verydifficult, both on exports and on US
criticism of the EU Digital MarketsAct and the Digital Services Act.
But even with these agreements, we couldpotentially see more tariffs coming.
The administration has launchedinvestigations under Section 232 of the
(07:26):
Trade Expansion Act of 1962, preliminaryto imposing tariffs on critical minerals,
semiconductors, and related products,as well as pharmaceuticals and related
products like precursory chemicals.
Under this, they have 270 daysto investigate, but perhaps
this could conclude earlier.
(07:48):
The other thing we may see here, aswell, beyond just tariffs and trade
negotiations between countries, issectoral tariffs, as well, in this arena.
Steve Odland (07:59):
But you're hearing, especially with close allies like
Canada and Mexico, that therecould be some deals relatively soon,
maybe within the next hundred days.
Maybe they won't have inked every detail,but they will have a deal in hand.
You hear the same on UK, India,Vietnam, which is an important
alternative to China for manufacturing.
So there are some lights startingto shine at the end of the tunnel.
(08:23):
And so maybe in the nexthundred days, we can get a fair
number of these under underway.
You don't hear China in that.
China's probably not goingto be in the next hundred.
David Young (08:33):
Yeah.
You've seen, of all of them, Chinacome back the hardest, from their
retaliatory efforts, the hardest asit relates to other countries.
The other interesting thing, youmentioned Canada, they obviously
have a new prime minister.
Carney was in Washingtonthis week meeting with Trump.
And as we know as well, theUSMCA has to be renegotiated.
(08:55):
Quite a few variables out there.
And I think, again, a lot of thesecountries are wanting this resolved within
the next hundred days because the longerit goes, the more impact there is to
businesses and policies moving forward.
Steve Odland (09:10):
Yeah, and relations, which would be terrible.
It's one thing when you're dealingwith a geopolitical foe, it's different
when you're dealing with your closeallies, military and trade allies.
And the integrated supply chain in NorthAmerica is probably the most important,
situation that we've got to deal with.
But that's a lot to doin the next hundred days.
You also have this ticking clockof the midterm elections, which
(09:33):
are next year already, nextNovember, a year from this November.
But that season, the midterm season,kicks off in January, typically.
So really, we're in May.
You have probably six months to getall of these things resolved, all
of the important trade deals thatare up in the air, the tax bill,
as you said, and the debt ceiling.
(09:55):
So the next hundred days, Ithink that's why you positioned it
as urgent, for a lot of reasons.
The administration understands they'lllose the House or Senate or both if
they don't have this wrapped up in thenext hundred, 130 days or so, right?
David Young (10:11):
Yeah, you're exactly right.
And they will want to focus onshowing results by whatever key
performance indicators they have.
Notably, a little bit more securityand stability in policy, in decision
making, and also the markets.
Steve Odland (10:28):
Yeah.
Yeah, markets as well.
Now you have this whole DOGE thing,which is really interesting to watch.
People have been talking about tryingto take costs out of the government.
I think, if you went down the streetand you asked every citizen that
you saw, "Should we take costs outof the government?" I think the
majority would probably say yes.
You probably can't get two of them toagree on where to take the costs out.
(10:50):
And I think that's why this overlayof an independent look through
a DOGE vehicle is interesting.
Whether or not it's thebest way is to be seen.
But the key driver of that wasElon Musk, and now he's going to be
leaving this role and getting backto his knitting on his company.
So what happens to DOGEin the next hundred days?
David Young (11:11):
Yeah, it's a great question.
Just one thing to add herein terms of people agreeing.
You mentioned where they may agreeor disagree, but it's also, "How
do you go about making these cuts?"I think you're exactly right.
There aren't many people thatdisagree that the bureaucracy
is somewhat bloated and could bemore efficient and more effective.
And there are two dimensions aroundthe DOGE efforts: having the impact
(11:32):
that it hopes to have, which iswhere to make those cuts, but also
how to go about making those cuts.
So yeah, with regards to ElonMusk, yeah, he's leaving his
role in the administration.
Quite a bit of litigation continueson the DOGE efforts to reorganize
the government, including personnelreductions and efforts to end the
functions of entire agencies such asUSAID and also the Voice of America.
(11:56):
I think you should be able toexpect more court decisions, perhaps
even from the Supreme Court inthe next hundred days and beyond.
Now also, the DOGE effort isexpanding beyond just spending cuts.
It's expanding towardsthe area of regulation.
A good example here is all agencieshave been told to send lists of
regulations they wish to repeal tothe Office of Management and Budget
(12:21):
in coordination with the DOGE teamleads at each of those agencies.
This will lead to likely repeal ofmany regulations with significant
economic effects without using typicalnotice-and-comment rulemaking procedures.
So I think, yes, Elon Muskstarted the DOGE efforts.
He's very much spurred it and beenthe heartbeat of that organization.
(12:42):
But I think we should all anticipatethose efforts continuing to move
forward, as there's, as you saidat the beginning here, Steve, this
recognition and willingness to streamlinegovernment and increase efficiency
and effectiveness moving forward.
Steve Odland (12:56):
The involvement of the courts is largely due to the
administration's attempt to testthe boundaries on what belongs in
the executive branch versus whatbelongs in the legislative branch,
with obviously the judicial branchsitting in judgment of that.
But that's what most of these courtcases are about, saying, look, Congress
allocated these funds and turned itover to the executive branch to execute.
(13:20):
So the executive branch can't justdetermine unto their own not to
execute it, not to spend the money.
And so these are the testcases that are rattling through.
Now we have the end of the termcoming up at the end of June.
So lots of stuff to bedecided before then.
David Young (13:38):
Yes.
And just to just one point, just tocomment, I think you've seen, and this
is not just with Trump, it's almost withevery president, pushing the boundaries
of executive power and authority.
And obviously the US has its checksand balances, but there's always this
kind of gray area in terms of what canthe executive do, what can he not do?
And whether it's Trump, Biden,Obama, or whomever, they have always
(14:05):
pushed the boundaries with regards totheir level of authority and power.
With regards to the SupremeCourt, what else is on its docket?
It has a very active regular docketwith cases on, for instance, a proposed
religious charter school, Medicarepayments to hospitals, and criminal
law beyond its regular docket here.
(14:27):
It will almost certainly have to decidemajor cases concerning the powers of
the president, as we've mentioned,including cases on impoundment of
appropriated funds, whether the presidentcan shut an agency that was in fact
established by Congress, and whetherthe president has the power to fire
members of multi-member agencies suchas the FTC and also the Federal Reserve.
(14:53):
The court's term, just sowe know, ends around July 4.
Steve Odland (14:57):
Yeah, a good day for it, too.
We're talking about the next hundred days.
We're going to take a shortbreak and be right back.
Welcome back to C-Suite Perspectives.
I'm your host, Steve Odland,from The Conference Board.
I'm joined today by David Young, thepresident of The Conference Board's
public policy center, which is calledthe Committee for Economic Development.
(15:19):
So Davy, before the break, we weretalking about this challenge, or
this tension, between the executivebranch and the legislative branch.
And a lot of that's beingtested in the courts.
There's another tensionthat has broken forth.
But here again, it's not unique to thisadministration, and that's between the
Federal Reserve and the executive branch.
Talk about that tension andwhat the current issues are.
David Young (15:43):
Yeah.
Stepping back for a moment onthis, just to set the scene
with regards to this topic.
In regulation, the presidenthas taken a strong line.
First, issuing an executive orderto put independent regulatory
agencies, this is including theFederal Reserve, more directly
under the control of the president.
From this, he has then had the abilityto fire commissioners of independent
(16:07):
agencies, including two Democraticcommissioners on the FTC, and has, as
you mentioned, Steve, been threateningto fire the Fed Chairman Jerome Powell.
He does this under the theory ofthe unitary executive—essentially,
that these independent agencies nowcannot be truly independent, must in
fact report to the executive branch.
Steve Odland (16:30):
He did walk that back though, just to be clear.
He walked back the intent to fire theFed chair when the markets dropped.
David Young (16:37):
Yes.
Steve Odland (16:37):
Thereby giving away that what he was really doing is, he was
posturing and rattling swords here.
But he said he had nointention to do that.
So it is interesting to watch thestyle and the process here, but
he's acknowledged that one at least.
David Young (16:51):
Yeah, yeah, he sure did.
It is also important here tonote, and I find this really
fascinating with what he was doing.
It's not only legally verydifficult to make that decision,
but it's also difficult in marketterms, which you've alluded to.
Any movement in that direction wouldprompt market volatility, as it did.
Just so listeners understand this, and Ifind this part pretty interesting, just
(17:15):
around how difficult it could be in ascenario, should he go down this path.
The chair of the FederalReserve is appointed, yes, by
the president and confirmed bythe Senate to a four-year term.
The chair also serves as a member of theFed's Board of Governors, where, believe
it or not, he serves a 14-year term.
(17:38):
So Chair Powell's leadership endsin May 2026, but his seat on the
board does not expire until 2028.
So to remove the Fed chair, first,the president would have to remove
them from the Board of Governors.
And that is only allowed for cause.
It is a high bar, and there isno precedent set to date on that.
(18:01):
Cause is precisely defined as, let's say,misconduct, neglect of duty, incompetence,
or violation of ethical standards.
So removing the Fed chair,simply put, is a legal minefield.
In market terms, the Fed's powerrests on a simple idea, which is
(18:21):
independence from political pressure.
That's not just doctrine, let'sjust say, that's market gospel.
In short, threatening theFed doesn't soothe markets.
Rather, it spooks them, and actually,the result could be opposite to what the
administration actually wants to see.
So you could potentially see higher rates,weaker confidence, and market turmoil.
Steve Odland (18:44):
But he said he is not going to do it.
Just kidding, move along,nothing to see here.
But the reason that there's thetension is because interest rates
have remained high—discount rate,the Fed discount rates remain high.
Therefore, interest rates haveremained high, which means
mortgage rates have remained high,and that market has been tight.
And h e's saying, reducethe discount rate.
(19:07):
And the Fed is saying, not so fast,because there's all this volatility
and uncertainty created by the tariffs.
So there's almost acircular argument here.
But it is an issue, right?
It's almost a Catch-22.
You can't really jumpstartthe economy until the discount
rate starts to come down.
You can't do that until theeconomy, there's clarity here.
(19:28):
Hence the tension.
But there's also been this tension betweenthe Fed chair and almost every president.
Some have been less public aboutit, but it's always been out there.
David Young (19:39):
Yeah, always, or tension's always been out there.
Then also, Steve, to yourpoint, you mentioned these two
words, a circular argument.
I think it just goes to show howintertwined and interconnected everything
is, not just in politics and policy,but also connected to business.
Steve Odland (19:58):
Yeah.
Now, we were talking about tariffsbefore the break, and of course, that
is essentially a geo-economic issue,but it's also a geopolitical one.
There are other geopoliticalissues beyond this.
And hence you get into a wholelitany of issues in the South
China Sea, the potential blockadeof Taiwan, which they've been
practicing live fire exercises there.
(20:20):
You've got the spying going onin the polar region, including
Greenland by those adversaries.
You've got the construction ofRussian bases on the Finnish border
and in and around the Baltics, hencesaber-rattling that if Ukraine gets
settled, then you've got potentiallyto deal with a Baltic situation.
Lots and lots of concerns while atthe same time, our forces have been
(20:46):
diminishing, and so there's a needfor modernization of all of this.
And so if you stitch together all ofthese geopolitical issues, what do you
see happening in the next hundred days?
David Young (20:58):
Yeah.
So Steve, you're exactly right.
Lots of concerns.
And these concerns, as weknow, they're not static.
They are changing very rapidly.
Just a few things.
Before I mentioned some of thethings that have evolved just,
honestly, in the last 48 hours.
Beyond the efforts to end the warin Ukraine, which I'm delighted to
hear you'll be doing another podcaston in a little bit more detail,
(21:19):
we're obviously dealing with theefforts to avoid war with Iran.
Also, NATO has been a big topic ofmany administrations, but also
the second Trump administration.
The NATO summit, just so ourlisteners know, will occur
in late June in The Hague.
The administration will press hardfor European increases in defense
(21:41):
spending, while allies will be lookingfor signals as to the extent of the US'
future commitment to Europe and NATO.
Discussions over the military futureof Europe will likely intersect in
some way, with difficult negotiationsover tariffs with the EU, including
US' criticism of the Digital MarketsAct and the Digital Services Act.
(22:04):
European leaders will continue towant a strong US presence, I think,
both militarily and commercially.
You mentioned Asia, just briefly, if thereis the possibility of a Trump-Xi summit in
June, then US posture in the Asia-Pacificregion, as well as policy towards
Taiwan, will become more important.
(22:27):
I would also note that the report tothe president, which he requested on US
membership of international organizationsand conventions, is due in early August.
He's asking to see if they can bereformed to favor the US interest
in a slightly better way, or whetherthe US should withdraw or change
their commitment or relationship.
(22:49):
Obviously, we're seeing changes tomultilateral organizations from the US
perspective, including the World HealthOrganization, Paris Climate Agreements,
and a few other smaller UN bodies.
It is unclear if the report willlead to immediate US withdrawals
or begin a period of renegotiationswith affected organizations,
(23:12):
so time will tell on that side.
Interestingly, I do mentionmultilateral organizations, last
month, obviously, the World Bank andIMF held their spring meetings in DC.
And following those, SecretaryBessant has excluded withdrawal
from the World Bank and the IMF.
So there's not one blanketpolicy or statement coming
(23:33):
out of the administration.
It's very much on a case-by-case basis.
Two other important issues justto mention, and these have evolved
dramatically in the last couple days.
India-Pakistan, increased conflictand retaliation on that border front.
And while we hope for it not toescalate, it's not without possibilities.
(23:54):
And the other is Israel and Gaza.
Israel coming out recently this week,promising a concluding move with
regards to Gaza and using additionaltroops to take over the entire enclave.
So a variety of geopolitical andgeo-economic issues emerging, as
(24:15):
they always have done, which Ithink will continue to require
strong leadership from the US.
It's also interesting what the USis doing with regards to potentially
restructuring the US State Department.
Times do change.
Steve, you mentioned earlier,no one's going to disagree with
bureaucracy being a little bit slow.
(24:35):
And I think it is interesting,just given the pace of change,
what happens within business andgovernment, and especially geopolitics.
How do we make, and I think this willbe one of the interesting challenges
for the administration, how do theymake the US State Department more
effective, more agile, more responsiveto the fast-changing pace that we're
(24:55):
seeing within geopolitics today?
Steve Odland (24:57):
And last question, just wrapping up quickly, What do
you expect to see from Congressin the next hundred days?
David Young (25:03):
Yeah.
Beyond the tax bill and debtceiling, both of which will be top
of Congress's agenda for the nexthundred days, the 2026 budget.
The 12 budget bills will provide anopportunity for Congress to restore, if it
wishes, funding for programs and personnelcuts in the DOGE reorganization efforts.
In particular, Congress will have toconsider the proposed reorganization
(25:27):
of the State Department thatI've mentioned in foreign aid.
The budget bills offer Congress'sbest chance to potentially
reassert its power over the purse.
Let's not also forget here, bordersecurity, immigration, and other
issue areas that Trump ran hiscampaign on, one of which would be
(25:48):
the fentanyl drug crisis happeningin the US from the southern border.
Steve Odland (25:53):
The next hundred days, all delivered with
traditional British understatement.
David Young, thanks forbeing with us today.
David Young (26:00):
A pleasure, Steve.
Great to be here.
Appreciate it.
Steve Odland (26:02):
And thanks to all of you for listening to C-Suite Perspectives.
I'm Steve Odland, and this series has beenbrought to you by The Conference Board.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com