A tense exchange between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky, and other meetings and statements that preceded it in recent weeks, underscore Trump’s increasing willingness to question, and reject, the existing transatlantic alliance structure in favor of normalization with Russia — evidently deemed more consistent with his administration’s America First foreign policy doctrine.
Trump’s harsh words to Zelensky point to a shift in U.S. policy toward Ukraine from unconditional support to a more transactional approach, making it clear that the speed with which the U.S. extricates itself from its commitments to Kyiv outweighs both the terms of that exit and any damage America’s relationship with its historic allies may sustain as a result. Taken together, Trump’s repeated refusals to offer security guarantees to Ukraine, or a clear pledge of support to NATO allies against a potential Russian threat, suggest a diminished U.S. commitment to European security — leaving European allies to take greater responsibility for their own defense as the Trump administration’s focus shifts to China (aside from issue-specific engagements in the Middle East that could be leveraged to net the U.S. president a Nobel Peace Prize).
For all his promises to end the war in Ukraine quickly and decisively, Trump has offered little clarity on how he would pursue either a ceasefire or an enduring peace agreement, and expressed limited optimism about his chances: “If it doesn’t happen quickly, it may not happen at all.” Following his contentious exchange with Zelensky, further military aid to Kyiv is in serious doubt — but a proposed deal to establish a “reconstruction investment fund,” to be jointly managed by the U.S. and Ukrainian governments, could still be on the table.
More recent versions of the draft agreement have been more favorable to Ukraine, dropping an initial demand of a $500 billion share of its critical minerals and incorporating provisions that would reinforce a sanctions regime against Russia. (Notably, the final draft reportedly included language seeking to prevent Ukraine’s adversaries from benefiting from its reconstruction — potentially including China in addition to Russia.) Regardless, serious questions remain whether a meaningful natural resources deal could be possible without U.S. security guarantees to Ukraine, although Trump clearly thinks European allies should be responsible for Ukraine’s security, and views American companies that would be on the ground exploring for minerals as a security guarantee in itself.
Among many controversial decisions President Trump has made since returning to office, putting Elon Musk in charge of reshaping the U.S. government to suit his political agenda has been one of the most contentious. One month in, Musk’s push to cut costs by pruning federal programs and entire agencies is beginning to raise questions about the government’s future ability to fulfill Trump’s policy objectives and deliver services to a significant portion of the president’s electorate that is reliant on them.
Even though the idea of having a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is broadly popular, Trump’s radical downsizing of the federal bureaucracy has so far resulted in roughly one-third of all legal challengesfiled against his administration. Perhaps more importantly, there has been growing pushback against DOGE, and Musk as its public face, from top administration officials, including Trump loyalists, and conservative lawmakers, including those in safe Republican districts.
Americans generally prefer a smaller government with fewer services, but they are skeptical of Trump’s specific moves to reduce its size and scope. A majority, 53%, disapprove of his attempts to shut down entire federal agencies, and a plurality, 48%, say he has gone too far in changing the way the government works. Fifty-five percent think that Musk, who has no formal role at DOGE, holds too much decision-making power, and 54% are critical of the prominent part he plays in the Trump administration.
Crucially, only 31% of voters say government reform should be Trump’s top priority — while 62%, including 47% of Republicans, believe he has not done enough to reduce inflation, which remains a major concern. This discrepancy suggests a mismatch in priorities that could put pressure on Republican lawmakers in districts that are highly dependent on federal jobs, services, or benefits, potentially hampering the implementation of Trump’s larger agenda in a closely divided Congress.
At this point, opposition to Trump comes mainly from Democrats. Just 16% of Republicans oppose shutting down government agencies, and 12% say Republicans in Congress are doing too much to back the president’s agenda. Greater risks to Trump’s party could come from potential cuts to federal health spending to pay for the extension of his first-term tax cuts, or a surge in inflation that 53% of Republicans expect to result from his tariffs. Time will tell whether any provisions in Trump’s package of tax and spending cuts, which is currently taking shape — and which aims to permanently reduce the U.S. government’s size and reach — can reverse a steady erosion in the president’s net approval rating since his inauguration, or ease a growing sense of pessimism and fear across the political spectrum about what the rest of his term might bring.
As congressional Republicans search for savings to fund the extension of President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts that would otherwise expire in December, some clean energy tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) appear safer than others. The U.S. Senate budget resolution, passed February 20, includes instructions for unspecified spending cuts but does not delve into tax issues. The U.S. House resolution, approved February 25, leaves IRA tax credits in place, ostensibly because a lion’s share of IRA spending on clean energy manufacturing has gone to Republican congressional districts. But once House Republicans start looking for specific programs to offset as much as $2 trillion in proposed spending cuts, or later, once the House and Senate Republicans begin work on a joint budget reconciliation package, electric vehicle consumer tax credits are virtually certain to come into play — although any savings from their elimination will do very little to help avert potential cuts to public health programs like Medicaid.
In the meantime, two Republican bills in the Senate, one of them cosponsored by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, seek to end the consumer tax credit for purchased and leased EVs, eliminate federal incentives for EV charging infrastructure, and impose a new $1,000 tax on EVs to pay for road repairs. In the House, there is a similar proposal from Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington, who led the development and passage of the House budget resolution and will be instrumental in ensuring that President Trump’s fiscal agenda is advanced through the reconciliation process. While these are messaging bills unlikely to pass in their current form, they make it clear that the pressure on EV tax credits is on. Based on the current timeline, the budget reconciliation package is not expected to be ready until May at the earliest, and we will be watching developments in this space.
