While many news organisations are taking wider views of the situation, we chose to narrow our focus to financial services industry impacts as much as possible in this view on US President Trump’s first 100 days. We explored, through extensive research across
a wide political and economic spectrum, how well his pre-election promises reflect the targets he and his administration (and allies like Elon Musk and others) have achieved since his January 20, 2025 inauguration.
It’s most fair, we decided, to compare initial promises as simply as practicable vs. facts and outcomes. To share what policy plans were committed to before or just as the current President took office, and what has been achieved thus far in several key
categories and topic areas within the banking and finance arenas: domestic policy and
tariffs and trade – both certainly poised to have the largest potential impacts on financial institutions, fintechs, and their customers, and to a lesser extent,
AI and deregulation of financial services, and diversity and inclusion-supportive programmes and practices.
These somewhat catch-all categorisations capture most of the specific topics and related issues (sometimes acting in combination) that we’ve covered in Finextra for our banking and fintech readers since last summer’s Presidential campaign and its climax
in November 2024.
Domestic policy: Inflation and costs of living promises vs. 100-day results
Early on, five to six months before the 2024 elections, discussions surrounded inflation and potential rate cuts by the Federal Reserve. Both of the two
main candidates for the US presidency, including the incumbent, claimed they had the answers, and would either keep inflation moving steadily lower (Democrats) or would put new policies in place to reduce inflation on American consumers in businesses (Republicans.)
Then the faces changed, though their specific domestic policy positions didn’t much, when Kamala Harris assumed the sitting President Biden’s mantle only a few months prior to the election. At the Republican National Convention in July 2024, candidate Trump
– according to
Fox Business - said: "We’ve had the worst inflation we’ve ever had under this person," Trump said referring to President Biden. "Inflation has been a killer for our country. No matter what you’re making, it doesn’t matter because inflation is eating you
alive."
Trump promised to bring down prices if re-elected to his second term in office, notably by ending taxes on service workers’ tips, extending 2017’s federal tax cuts, and by reducing energy costs. Tariffs would play a huge role too, but we
discuss those separately.
"Drill, baby, drill," the once-and-future-President urged, because, as he stated, lower energy costs "reduce the cost of transportation, manufacturing and all household goods […] So much starts with energy, and remember we have more liquid gold under our feet
than any other country."
Besides energy, would there be other drivers to lower inflation for US households and businesses? Yes, said Trump, including reductions in government agency spending (and employment), regulations, and greater efficiency and expense management going forward.
We soon began to call this campaign "DOGE" (Deptarment of Governmental Efficiency) and saw tremendous attention paid to new ally and czar of this extra-governmental cost-cutting effort’s leader Elon Musk, richest human in the world and empowered by President
Trump to start slashing jobs and promising savings, according to Politico,
first of $2 trillion, and then of $1 trillion.
Results, 100 days in: Inflation is flat to mixed at best, with potential to worsen in near term. Little change has yet been seen in this key cost of living measure. For financial services, risks of lower income or losses
rise when customers lose jobs, become less liquid, lose confidence in their capacity to spend or invest, or sometimes a combination of the above.
According to the Associated Press (and as reported by the
Detroit News, in the heart of the ‘rust belt’ and traditional automobile manufacturing sector) Inflation peaked at 9.1% in 2022. "It was at 3% in January" around Trump’s inauguration date and sat at 2.4% in March. But this was before the effects of Trump’s
sweeping tariffs were felt, and inflation is now expected to rise as these multi-pronged government mandates impact companies, supply chain partners, and their customers across many sectors, all around the world.
Speaking of energy prices: gasoline at the pump is around $3.16 per gallon as of 29 April and rising slowly, according to industry tracker
AAA. When Trump entered office, the average national price was $3.13 per gallon.
According to most financial and budget experts, we’ll know more on just how US inflation will respond soon. Expect April and May government reports to tell a tale of rising costs that will persist as long as the tariffs (already being pulled back or reduced
in scope in numerous areas) do.
Government spending and staffing cuts at federal agencies – promises made
According to Utah’s
Deseret News, quoting C-Span, Trump, at a rally in Albuquerque, New Mexico in late October said: "On Day 1, I will sign an executive order directing every federal agency to immediately remove every single burdensome regulation driving up the
cost of goods." What some may not have expected then – at least on such an accelerated timeline - is that it wasn’t just regulations, but also hundreds of thousands of staff positions and programmes that were targeted for elimination, any not
considered ‘required’ for the federal agencies or programmes to perform their duties as defined by Musk, Trump, and their supporters.
Results, 100 days since Trump’s inauguration:
Many federal agencies and programmes have – according to some sources at least - seen substantial cuts. But figuring out the truth, often hiding in contrary statements and reports, is complicated.
DOGE slashed more than
279,000 government worker and contractor jobs in 27 agencies alone through March, according to outplacement/business coaching firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
But wait: because so many of DOGE’s proposed cuts have been challenged in court, or perhaps just
planned and not yet actually carried out, some other news and watchdog authorities are reporting a dramatically smaller number of actual government worker job reductions. In fact, Allsides, a public benefit corporation which it says - like its name
would imply - tries to be exceptionally balanced in its issues coverage, reports
only 61,296 federal jobs cuts have actually been recorded as of 29 April. The true answer is of course, somewhere in the middle.
On the financial services side, many promises and threats to slash regulations and cuts were made by Trump and Musk and the incoming President’s appointees to run the Federal Deposit insurance Corporation (FDIC), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB),
and other agencies in charge of regulating and monitoring the financial services sectors in the US.
As of late April,
Bloomberg Law reported that the FDIC plans to let more than 1,200 of about 6,200 of its employees go, including those who’ve already accepted deferred resignation offers from the Trump/Musk DOGE project. Concerns were raised last month in one industry analysis
that planned staff cuts at FDIC might result in a
decreased auditing capability for the agency, which supervises all ‘safety and soundness’ examinations and depositor insurance provided to the nation’s banks. We also examined Trump and his allies’ and opponents’ arguments for
closing or consolidating the FDIC with other agencies in a Finextra story in late 2024.
Meanwhile, the CFPB, which went on a bit of a rollercoaster ride while Trump, agency heads, and DOGE leaders waited to fire its former head for several weeks, then tried to completely shut it down, only to be forced to reverse course when confronted with
legal challenges, is now slated to cut 90% of its staff. The agency was created in 2011 by Congress following the last major financial crisis
to protect consumers from financial fraud and abuse.
No doubt, more clarity is needed on how federal agency staffing reductions are measured and reported, but there is also no doubt that Trump/Musk promises
to ‘immediately’ cut inefficient or surplus federal government jobs and expenses (if not regulations, see details below) and achieve $1 trillion in overall savings
aren’t on track to achievement 100 days in to the new presidency. Cuts do seem to be escalating after initial legal challenges, but each day seems to bring more attacks on individual agencies, and then more legal challenges filed by states,
organisations, and individuals opposed to firings and furloughs they deem inappropriate and harmful to their interests and to the country.
Tariffs and trade: financial penalties for ‘unbalanced’ trade relationships, benefits for Americans?
Trump initially stated before he was elected that he planned to enact duties of at least 10% on "unfair" imports from all countries and 100% on cars not manufactured in the US. He’s
lately proposing either more or less than those targets, and the numbers keep changing, keeping business owners and trading partners off balance while the global economy shudders from the shocks it’s received and tries to make plans to handle the new cost
realities now rippling through millions of very complex worldwide supply chains. But no matter what the numbers say, virtually all experts in international trade – no matter what their political positions - say tariffs or duties are actually paid not by suppliers
from overseas but by importers in a country, and are usually passed on to consumers of the goods being
taxed.
It’s likely no one truly expected the depth and breadth or swift timing of US-imposed tariffs aimed at just about every industry and nation, not just a promised 60% on goods produced by traditional economic and political rivals like China. Now Canada and
Mexico are being tagged, and the European Union has been targeted even more, for increased tariffs.
Curiously, the US’s largest exports, of services (such as software, restaurants, movies, videogames, etc.) are not part of the Trump tariff campaign. That was something that drew the attention of
Harvard international trade expert Robert Lawrence, who as part of his analysis of ‘all the angles’ of Trump’s proposed tariffs in late ’24 said: "I think firstly there's an obsession with goods that isn't the right measure. What we ought to be looking
at is not only our trade in goods, but also our trade in services, and we have a significant surplus in our trade in services. Therefore, when you aggregate the two together, you get a much smaller percentage and a smaller number relative to our GDP."
Economists and ‘think tanks’ have now spent less than 100 days analysing the numbers based on the tariffs Trump and his agency heads actually put in place soon after he took office. They have begun to sound alarms that go beyond concerns initially voiced
in 2024 that tariffs would be "inflationary" and building on the "will harm working Americans" tags placed on tariff proposals during last year’s election campaign.
Recently, many trade and economic experts have tried to explain just how damaging tariffs and declining confidence can be to businesses and consumers.
JP Morgan Research’s chief global economist Bruce Kasman, in a report issued in late April stated: “We anticipate this slide in sentiment to accelerate sharply into midyear, as a front-loaded lift in global industry fades and as the April tariff announcement
weighs on business confidence broadly.”
Rosalia Mazza, writing in
Fintech Weekly, ponders questions surrounding tariffs and their supposed positive outcomes: “Will the average person—the middle-class voter—actually see any benefit? Probably not. Prices are likely to increase, and re-training a workforce
to fill the gaps left by previously imported goods is an enormous, time-consuming challenge. From an investor’s point of view, uncertainty like this tends to trigger caution. Capital moves toward safer assets—often away from tech, and particularly away from
high-growth sectors like fintech." Mazza notes that a slowdown is already happening. "Several fintech companies are
delaying IPOs—among them,
Klarna and
Chime." Other fallout that may be just around the corner? "Tariffs could do more than spark inflation and slow down consumer spending. They may stall innovation, suppress investor appetite, and
leave the US behind in both competition and talent development. Today’s global economy is too complex for tariffs to serve as a magic fix," concluded Mazza.
The BBC shared a report and the views of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) of what has now become a dramatic escalation of the Trump approach to tariffs on China. Initial plans for 60% tariffs
on Chinese goods are now set at 145% on imports from that country, with China striking back and placing 125% tariffs on US goods in retaliation. The IMF predicts that the current Trump tariffs will cause the global economy to grow more slowly, and the US economy
to grow even less so. It also predicts that a US recession in 2025 is now more likely.
Beyond the widely distributed impacts expected by multilateral tariff fights sparked by the Trump actions against so many countries - now estimated to hit average American households with extra costs from $1700 to $2350 or more each year - many observers
have spoken of additional 'spillover' impacts of the tariffs. These go past the inflation tariffs bring to what we’re seeing now in many companies - slowdowns in corporate decision making, decreases in capital investments, and tabling of expansion or new hiring
or significant growth plans for the foreseeable future.
Results: To be determined, with tariff war outcomes not likely to match President Trump’s stated promises in the short term, with benefits or detriments subject to constant change as the administration’s ‘rules’ for which industries
and countries are targeted for tariffs change almost daily.
Each of most experts’ projected outcomes of the present Trump tariff regime, if they do occur, may seriously impede the performance of the financial services and fintech sectors, which depend on companies and individual consumers being confident and ready to
make new product, service, and technology investments. These investments are often completed with money borrowed from banks, credit unions, and nonbank financial institutions. They help fuel new hiring, expansion, and even greater financial inclusion - through
providing opportunities to build income and wealth for many workers not served by traditional financial institutions or networks.
AI and deregulation of financial services: where will it take the industry?
During the most recent Presidential campaign Finextra and other financial services publications
reported on AI, its potential uses, and the potential for that deployment in banking applications to be closely administered by federal agencies into the future. The major questions surrounding AI regulations around banks, credit unions, fintechs, and nonbanks
in the industry then were if Biden’s policies and approaches - largely supportive of broad development and support of AI tools in all industries - would continue under a Trump administration.
Results: At 100 days into his administration, those questions have been answered. Regulations governing not just AI, but numerous areas of financial services, have been and look to be continually eased or removed well into the near
future - across the country, in almost every case - literally and figuratively, under the Trump regime. Many government-led actions and lawsuits started under the Biden administration and aimed to rein in certain financial services and tech companies’ market
practices, planned mergers, and potential acquisitions have now been
dismissed by Trump’s agency lawyers. In a number of major instances, regulation has been removed if deemed obstructive to reasonable growth or if Trump or his appointees in federal banking agencies believe doing so will advance America’s interests.
Where will AI go from here in financial services? Those answers, in terms of both applications and appropriate use of AI technology, now looks like they will come mostly from within the industry itself. This is true especially if the Trump administration’s
current policies on agency cost and staff cutting and regulatory and oversight rules reductions and dismissals continue as they have since his inauguration.
Diversity and inclusion support under Trump? Disappearing as fast as they can make it happen
Candidate Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would do everything in his power to remove diversity, equity, and inclusion language and programmes (and the people that lead them or support them) from the federal government.
Results: Once again, in less than 100 days, and through the actions of Elon Musk’s DOGE project and Trump’s cabinet members, nearly no agency – nor even some large private companies - has been spared the wrath of anti-DEI forces.
They kept their promises, and then some, in this area.
Trump and his allies in government and in business have largely followed the Heritage Foundation’s
Project 2025 conservative policy template – even though the then-former-President claimed not to have
embraced it nor read it before his election. As it clearly advocates, and as Trump and his supporters said before he was elected to a second term, they were determined to
remove any and all aspects of DEI from government and agencies. The results at 100 days are clear: they’ve been very successful in accomplishing these objectives, arguably more effectively, in fact, than any other promises made before the election in November.
As has been
widely reported, DEI programmes and staffers in government, including to the
highest levels of the military, and even in loosely related or government-supported nonprofit organisations, public schools, institutions of higher learning, or transnational agencies like
USAID (an agency that fought hunger and poverty around the world) have all been targeted, destined for elimination, or in the cases of personnel, fired from their posts. Some employee resource groups, including those that have grown over time to represent
various ethnic and social groups in federal organisations as well as in the private sector (many financial services organisations included), have also been feeling the ‘heat’ of the Trump administration’s scrutiny, and the anti-DEI crusade isn’t likely to
slow down anytime soon.
Aimed at fighting what it called “illegal discrimination or preferences,” Trump has directed his agency heads to ‘investigate’ private sector companies’ diversity and inclusion and related programmes to ensure they’re not engaging in 'illegal DEI' within
the confines of their companies. One list of companies "rolling back DEI
commitments" includes several prominent financial services firms. Another shares the names of several major financial services and other companies that have
vowed to stay the course with their diversity programmes, despite heavy pressure from the Trump administration and other political and economic entities to drop them.
What’s next for DEI in financial services? That’s going to be up to the companies themselves, unless the federal government, under the Trump administration, decides to 'lean in' even more forcefully against diversity, inclusion, or other programmes and the
companies that support them for their employees. Given even more pressure than is being applied now, it’s possible more financial services and fintech leaders will choose to abandon their diversity efforts in favour of not angering the US President and his
allies – potentially their customers or suppliers - in government, business, or consumer circles.
Overall, after 100 days in office, it’s a mixed bag of strong promises made, key targets missed, goals achieved in some areas, and questions still remaining in many others for President Trump and his administration. For financial services and fintech companies,
the next 100 days – and especially how tariffs and their impacts shake out across companies, communities, countries, and supply chains across the globe – will tell the ultimate tale of success or struggle for the financial services industry - and the people
and businesses it serves under Trump’s new anti-regulation, anti-DEI, pro-tariff, America first regime.