President Donald Trump’s first 100 days back in the White House, marked on April 29, have been a whirlwind of bold initiatives and polarizing policies. Historically, this period serves as a litmus test for a leader’s priorities and governing style, offering a window into their political momentum. Trump has seized this opportunity with characteristic vigor, pushing forward on border enforcement, sweeping subsidy cuts, protectionist trade measures, and a radical overhaul of U.S. foreign policy. While his administration has secured early victories in some areas, global flashpoints like the war in Ukraine and the conflict in Gaza remain unresolved. If progress stalls, Trump may pivot to other arenas, such as re-engaging with North Korea, which has been largely dormant on Washington’s radar. In an interview with Asia Times, former U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton critiqued Trump’s approach, highlighting failures in achieving a Ukraine ceasefire and the potential economic fallout from Trump’s tariffs. Bolton also expressed skepticism about the prospects of meaningful progress in Ukraine ceasefire talks, citing irreconcilable differences between the parties. He warned of Putin’s long-term ambitions to recreate the Russian Empire, emphasizing the need for robust security guarantees for Ukraine. On North Korea, Bolton cautioned against premature engagement, stressing the importance of aligning with South Korea’s political landscape. He also dismissed the notion of Trump accepting a nuclear North Korea, reaffirming the U.S. commitment to denuclearization. As Trump’s administration navigates these complex geopolitical challenges, the world watches closely to see how his policies will shape the future of international relations.
标签： North America
北美洲
-
‘All good things must come to an end’: The Who announce North America farewell tour dates
Legendary British rock band The Who is set to bid farewell to North America with a final tour this summer. Frontman Roger Daltrey and guitarist Pete Townshend confirmed the details of “The Song Is Over North America Farewell Tour” on Thursday, named after their iconic 1971 track. The tour will feature a retrospective of their six-decade career, kicking off in Florida on August 16 and concluding in Las Vegas on September 28, with stops in major cities like New York, Toronto, Los Angeles, and Vancouver. The band, which rose to global fame in the 1970s, became a powerhouse in the music industry, headlining events like Woodstock and filling stadiums worldwide. Daltrey, 81, and Townshend, 79, have remained a dynamic duo despite the loss of drummer Keith Moon in 1978 and bassist John Entwistle in 2002. Townshend reflected on their journey, stating, “Roger and I still carry the banner for Keith, John, and our loyal fans. It’s been the best job I could ever have had.” The Who’s influence on rock music is undeniable, with hits like “My Generation,” “Baba O’Reilly,” and “Won’t Get Fooled Again” defining the genre. Their albums “Tommy” and “Quadrophenia” were even adapted into successful films. Ticket pre-sales begin May 13, with general sales starting May 16. While this marks the end of their North American performances, the band has not yet confirmed plans for a U.K. farewell tour. Daltrey humorously remarked, “Let’s see if we survive this one first.”
-
US foreign student purge an exercise in economic self-destruction
In early April 2025, the Trump administration abruptly terminated the immigration statuses of thousands of international students listed in a government database, leaving them without legal permission to remain in the country. This decision prompted some students to self-deport rather than face formal deportation proceedings. However, following widespread legal challenges, the US Department of Homeland Security announced it would reverse these terminations after courts across the nation deemed them unjustified. This reversal comes as the White House continues to emphasize stricter vetting and screening of foreign nationals, including plans to use artificial intelligence to review international students’ social media accounts.
International students in the US have long been subjected to rigorous vetting, screening, and monitoring. Despite this, the introduction of additional bureaucratic measures risks making the US a less attractive destination for global talent. Such policies could undermine the Trump administration’s ‘America First’ agenda, which aims to bolster the economy, advance science and technology, and enhance national security.
The US remains a global leader in attracting international students, but its dominance is waning. According to the Institute of International Education, the US now hosts 16% of all students studying abroad, down from 22% in 2014 and 28% in 2001. During the 2023-2024 academic year, over 1 million international students were present in the US, with 54% hailing from China and India. Most international students pursue graduate degrees in STEM fields, and they contribute significantly to the US economy, generating $43.8 billion in tuition and living expenses while supporting nearly 378,000 jobs.
However, global competition for international students is intensifying. Countries like Germany and South Korea are implementing strategies to attract foreign talent, offering more flexible visa policies and post-study work opportunities. The US’s stringent immigration policies and increased monitoring could further deter international students, redirecting talent to other nations.
International students play a critical role in the US’s global leadership in STEM, with 45% of STEM workers holding doctoral degrees being foreign-born. They also contribute to the economy by launching startups at a rate eight to nine times higher than their domestic peers. Restricting their ability to study in the US could hinder the nation’s ability to maintain its competitive edge in science, technology, and innovation.
As the global landscape shifts, the US must balance security concerns with the need to attract and retain top international talent to sustain its economic and technological leadership.
-
US security policy in Asia shows some continuity in sea of change
The first 100 days of Donald Trump’s second administration have been marked by significant upheaval, yet one policy remains steadfast: the construction of a regional defense architecture aimed at deterring Chinese aggression. However, this strategy faces challenges due to collateral damage from the administration’s foreign policy shifts, particularly its embrace of tariffs and skepticism toward traditional alliances.
During Trump’s first term (2017-2021), US policy toward China hardened as Washington concluded that deep economic engagement had failed to liberalize or pacify Beijing. Instead, China under Xi Jinping grew more authoritarian domestically and assertive internationally. The pandemic further highlighted America’s reliance on Chinese supply chains, prompting Trump to label China as an adversary rather than a partner. Tariffs were imposed on Chinese imports, and efforts began to reroute global supply chains away from China. Simultaneously, Trump criticized US alliances, arguing that allies benefited disproportionately from American protection.
Trump’s foreign policy diverged sharply from post-war norms, rejecting American exceptionalism and liberal values while expressing admiration for authoritarian leaders like Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un. He prioritized tariffs over free trade and questioned the value of US global commitments, particularly in Europe and Asia.
President Joe Biden (2021-2025) extended some of Trump’s tariffs on China and restricted Chinese access to advanced technology. However, Biden reversed Trump’s alliance skepticism, reaffirming the strategic value of US partnerships. In contrast, Trump’s second administration has doubled down on tariffs and disdain for alliances, implementing these policies with unprecedented intensity.
The global impact of Trump’s tariffs is significant, with most countries now facing a 10% tariff on US imports, up from an average of 2.5% in 2024. The threat of higher ‘reciprocal tariffs’ looms, potentially taking effect as early as May. Additionally, the US has effectively abandoned NATO, antagonizing Western Europe and Canada while accommodating Russia despite its aggression in Ukraine.
In the Asia-Pacific region, the Pentagon’s agenda to counter China has continued largely uninterrupted. US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s March trip to Japan and the Philippines underscored efforts to strengthen military cooperation. In Japan, the US plans to enhance joint training and weapon development, while upgrading its military headquarters to a command post. In the Philippines, Hegseth reaffirmed the US-Philippine defense treaty’s coverage of the South China Sea, where Chinese harassment of Philippine vessels has escalated. The US also announced plans to co-produce military systems and deploy advanced sea drones and anti-ship missiles in the Philippines.
The AUKUS agreement, which aims to provide Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, remains on track despite uncertainty over Trump’s support. While Australia has committed $3 billion to the initiative, Trump’s apparent unfamiliarity with the agreement raises doubts about its future.
Meanwhile, Trump’s tariffs have strained relations with key allies like Japan and South Korea, both of which face additional tariffs and pressure to increase defense spending. Despite their contributions to US military bases, Trump has criticized these countries as ‘free-riders,’ further complicating alliances.
In Australia, Trump’s policies have eroded confidence in US reliability. Tariffs on Australian exports, despite a US trade surplus with the country, have fueled disillusionment. While Australian leaders have resisted Chinese overtures to align against the US, the damage to the US-Australia relationship is evident.
In summary, Trump’s second administration has intensified its focus on tariffs and alliance skepticism, creating friction with traditional partners while pursuing a counter-China strategy. The challenge lies in reconciling ‘America First’ policies with the need for a cohesive Asian security architecture. Until this balance is achieved, these conflicting priorities will continue to undermine US foreign policy objectives.
-
Measles jumps borders in North America with outbreaks in Canada, Mexico and US
The measles outbreak sweeping across North America has become a pressing public health crisis, with over 2,500 confirmed cases and four fatalities reported in the U.S. and Mexico. The epidemic, which began in Ontario, Canada, last fall, has since escalated in Texas, New Mexico, and Chihuahua, Mexico, with significant clusters in Mennonite communities. Dr. Hector Ocaranza, El Paso’s top public health official, warned that the highly contagious virus knows no borders, as evidenced by the 38 cases in El Paso and 14 in neighboring Ciudad Juarez. The outbreak’s rapid spread is fueled by cross-border travel and low vaccination rates in certain regions. Health officials in both countries are racing to contain the virus, with vaccination clinics set up in public spaces and free vaccines offered regardless of residency. The Pan American Health Organization and the World Health Organization have raised alarms, noting an elevenfold increase in measles activity in the Americas compared to last year. The economic burden is also significant, with each U.S. case costing between $30,000 and $50,000 to manage. Despite efforts, health experts warn that the outbreak is far from contained, with new cases emerging in Michigan and Alberta, Canada. The crisis underscores the urgent need for coordinated cross-border health strategies and improved vaccination coverage to prevent future epidemics.
-
World Trade Organization says global trade could slide this year because of Trump’s tariff policies
The World Trade Organization (WTO) has projected a 0.2% decline in global goods trade for this year, attributing the downturn to U.S. President Donald Trump’s fluctuating tariff policies and the ongoing trade tensions with China. The WTO cautioned that the situation could worsen significantly if Trump implements his most stringent reciprocal tariffs. The global trade forum highlighted that North America would experience the sharpest decline, with exports expected to plummet by 12.6% and imports by 9.6% this year, even without the harshest tariffs. The WTO’s report, based on the tariff landscape as of Monday, initially anticipated continued trade expansion in 2025 and 2026. However, Trump’s trade war has compelled WTO economists to drastically revise their forecasts. If Trump enacts the toughest tariffs on most nations, global trade in goods could slump by 1.5%, primarily due to the uncertainty unsettling businesses. Earlier this month, Trump temporarily suspended the most severe tariffs for 90 days, allowing over 70 countries to address U.S. trade concerns. Concurrently, he has escalated taxes on Chinese imports to 145% and is embroiled in protracted tariff negotiations with Canada and Mexico. WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala emphasized that the persistent uncertainty threatens to hinder global growth, with particularly adverse effects on the most vulnerable economies. WTO Chief Economist Ralph Ossa noted that trade policy uncertainty significantly dampens trade flows, reducing exports and weakening economic activity. He stressed the importance of understanding the wide-ranging and often unintended consequences of tariffs in an increasingly tense global trade environment.
-
PepsiCo agrees to meet with Al Sharpton over DEI cuts, potential boycott
PepsiCo, a leading North American food and beverage conglomerate, is under fire for its decision to scale back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Reverend Al Sharpton, a prominent civil rights leader, announced on Monday that he will meet with PepsiCo CEO Ramon Laguarta this week to address the company’s controversial move. In a letter dated April 4, Sharpton warned of a potential boycott if PepsiCo fails to uphold its commitments to minority representation in managerial roles and supplier diversity. The company, which owns iconic brands like Gatorade, Lay’s, Doritos, and Mountain Dew, informed employees in February that it would no longer set specific goals for minority representation. Sharpton plans to press Laguarta on the rationale behind this decision and seek assurances regarding equal opportunities in employment and contracts. PepsiCo has yet to publicly comment on the matter. This development comes amid a broader trend of corporations, including Walmart and Target, rolling back DEI policies following President Donald Trump’s return to the White House earlier this year. Trump has also dismantled DEI programs within the federal government and threatened schools with funding cuts if they maintain such initiatives. In January, Sharpton led a “buy-cott” at Costco, encouraging consumers to support businesses committed to DEI policies. He emphasized the importance of economic pressure as a tool for social change, stating, ‘That is the only viable tool that I see at this time, which is why we’ve rewarded those that stood with us.’
-
Community, mentors and skill-building: Experts weigh the role of employee resource groups
Jenny Jang, who moved to the United States from South Korea at the age of six, faced significant challenges navigating her educational and professional environments as a minority. Unable to seek guidance from her parents, Jang turned to mentorship from external sources. Now based in Atlanta and employed at an international elevator company, Jang spearheaded the establishment of business resource groups in North America. These groups, designed to foster diversity and inclusion, provide employees with a platform to connect and share experiences around shared identities or themes. The first group, focused on women employees, attracted 500 members within three years, offering discussions on balancing family and career in a male-dominated industry. Subsequent groups catered to veterans and military families, creating safe spaces for employees to share their experiences. Employee resource groups (ERGs), which originated in corporate America in the 1970s to address racial, gender, and sexual orientation tensions, have since expanded to include other affiliations such as caregiving, mental health, neurodiversity, and generational divides. Critics argue that ERGs may create divisions and provide unfair advantages, prompting some companies to revise their purpose and scope. The future of ERGs faces additional uncertainty due to executive orders aimed at curtailing diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Legal guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission emphasizes that ERGs must be open to all employees to avoid unlawful segregation. Proponents highlight the benefits of ERGs, including community building, leadership development, and enhanced employee engagement. Experts recommend starting ERGs by identifying a shared experience, securing senior leadership sponsorship, and demonstrating the group’s impact on employee retention and organizational goals. Despite challenges, ERGs remain vital for underrepresented communities, offering support, connectivity, and advocacy.
-
Trump’s reciprocal tariffs will overturn decades of trade policy
President Donald Trump is poised to upend decades of established global trade norms with his anticipated announcement of reciprocal tariffs on April 2, a date he has dubbed “Liberation Day.” This bold move, aimed at reducing America’s reliance on foreign goods, is expected to create significant disruptions for global businesses and strain relations with both allies and adversaries. Since the 1960s, tariffs have been the product of multilateral negotiations, but Trump’s unilateral approach seeks to redefine this process. Richard Mojica, a trade attorney, warns that this strategy will necessitate widespread adjustments across industries. Trump’s rationale centers on America’s persistent trade deficits, which he attributes to higher tariffs imposed by other countries on U.S. exports. His solution? Raise U.S. tariffs to match those of trading partners. Economists, however, caution that tariffs often burden consumers and may not achieve the desired outcomes. While some, like Christine McDaniel, suggest that reciprocal tariffs could incentivize other nations to lower their tariffs, the broader consensus is that Trump’s approach introduces significant uncertainty into global trade. The White House has yet to clarify key details, such as whether tariffs will be adjusted on a product-by-product basis or averaged across countries. Critics argue that Trump’s grievances overlook the fact that many high foreign tariffs were agreed upon during the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations and are not uniquely targeted at the U.S. Moreover, the U.S. economy has outperformed other advanced economies in recent years, raising questions about the urgency of Trump’s trade policies. Beyond tariffs, Trump is also targeting foreign practices like subsidies and value-added taxes (VATs), further complicating the trade landscape. While VATs are applied equally to domestic and imported goods, Trump views them as a trade barrier, a stance most economists dispute. Ultimately, Trump’s tariffs have not significantly narrowed the U.S. trade deficit, which economists attribute to broader macroeconomic factors like low savings rates and high consumer spending. As the global trade environment grows increasingly chaotic, businesses and governments alike are bracing for the ripple effects of Trump’s protectionist agenda.