Republicans could quickly lose their narrow majority in the House through deaths, resignations and special elections. Consequently, during his first 100 days, Trump should prioritize those items that are most urgent and could be accomplished mostly cleanly and quickly.

Taxes and Immigration

With the budget deficit at more than 6% of GDP, essentially renew the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act with some embellishments such as for tips and overtime pay and the childcare tax credit.

Corporate tax cuts should be shelved—the combined federal-average state rate, 25.8%, is quite competitive with other industrialized countries and less than in Japan and Germany.

Going beyond that would drive up the sustainable 10-year Treasury rate, which provides the benchmark for mortgages and corporate borrowing. The 10-year rate has been rising even in the face of the Federal Reserve setting a lower federal funds rate, and combatting further upward pressure would require printing lots of money, more inflation and midterm election problems for Republican House incumbents.

Gross domestic product (GDP)( growth has averaged 2.5% since 2016, appreciably better than during the Bush-Obama years, thanks to Trump’s tax cuts, President Joe Biden’s infrastructure and industrial policies and irregular immigrants joining the workforce.

Consequently, better controlling the southern border may be essential, but so are measured approaches to deportations and immigration reform. The latter should emphasize filling needed skills and fees, paid by prospective employers and could be included with renewal of the TCJA in a reconciliation package and avoid a Senate filibuster.

Regulatory Relief

Elon Musk has novel ideas about suspending enforcement of many federal regulations. He asserts recent Supreme Court rulings—particularly, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022), which said federal agencies cannot impose regulations that resolve major policy questions without congressional authorization, and Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), which limited the discretion of federal regulatory agencies where laws are vague—makes many federal rules unconstitutional.

Corporate leaders would be foolish to stop complying with regulations Mr. Musk may target, because the courts and the next Democratic administration may not agree with his legal theories. Compliance failures could leave businesses with substantial civil liabilities.

The Trump administration could count on court challenges to the Musk approach. Mostly, it should pursue the arduous process of rewriting rules for existing regulation, vetting those through public comment and accomplish what it can.

Tariffs

Treasury Secretary designate Scott Bessent has talked about a layered approach to tariffs—leveraging those to obtain the policy responses desired from foreign governments.

President Donald Trump has threatened Canada and Mexico with a 25% tariff to obtain cooperation on border enforcement, illegal drug trafficking and trade with China.

Canada is already closely aligned with us and threatening Ottawa makes little sense.

Chinese manufacturers may be eyeing Mexico as a platform to circumvent U.S. tariffs. It should be encouraged to interdict migrants from other countries passing through to our border but faces significant challenges curbing drug cartels.

The temptation is always present for a new administration to negotiate with China in hopes of changing its behavior. But the Obama, Biden and Trump 1.0 administrations got little out of talking with Beijing, and its circumstances are quite different now.

With China’s economy reeling from a property sector meltdown, it’s dumping as many manufactures as it can onto global markets to stabilize its economy. Also, it has more leverage because it is a dominant supplier of rare earth minerals that are critical in the production of armaments, electronics of all kinds, green energy equipment, automotive battery technology and many other products.

Weakening U.S., European and other allies’ manufacturing sectors and broader economies with a flood of exports fits China’s bigger strategy—along with Axis members Russia, North Korea and Iran—to diminish American global influence and make the world safer for autocrats.

Quickly imposing a 60% tariff on Chinese imports could raise consumer prices 1.2% over the phase in period, but we should not aid the economy of a belligerent state by providing a market for its products.

That adds resources for China’s military buildup and will likely cost more to counter than we are saving on cheap consumer goods. We really need to boost defense spending by 2% of GDP to counter the Axis.

The manufacturing and high-tech industries Chinese mercantilism most harms undertake the most R&D, and their lost sales slows U.S. growth.

Trump should apply his China tariffs to products made by Chinese enterprises in Europe, Mexico and elsewhere and to the Chinese content of products imported from third countries.

That would be a great use for Bessent’s layering—it would inspire those nations to impose policies toward China similar to ours.

The Trump administration should immediately impose a 20% tariff on Chinese imports and an additional 20% each year to give U.S. businesses and consumers time to adjust.

_______________
Peter Morici is an economist and emeritus business professor at the University of Maryland, and a national columnist.