Industrial: Analyzing the logic behind Trump's "100-day new policy 2.0" from the perspective of four major forces.

ill Ackman) Paypal(Peter Thiel)[4](Elon Musk) (MAGA)(Peter Navarro)[5]MAGA (Michael Waltz)(Marco Antonio Rubio) 2.0 ->->MAGAMAGA2.0 7 (ill Ackman) is also a staunch supporter of Trump.Tech right. The support of the tech right is one of the important reasons why Trump won the 2024 election, so it also holds an important position in Trump's current cabinet. Paypal founder and Silicon Valley venture capitalist Peter Thiel not only supported Trump strongly in the 2020 and 2024 elections, but also successfully helped his supported candidate James David Vance (J.D. Vance) become Vice President. In addition, Tesla founder Elon Musk made important contributions to Trump's re-election, so under Trump's support, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was established to reform Washington's deep state. "Make America Great Again" group. "Make America Great Again" has been Trump's slogan since the 2016 election, which resonated well with many working-class white Americans and has become Trump's political base. At the beginning of this cabinet formation, Peter Navarro, who holds extreme trade protectionist views, was appointed as the President's Senior Trade and Manufacturing Advisor, reflecting Trump's protectionist and mercantilist characteristics in economic and trade policies, which initially received support from the MAGA group. Republican establishment. In the current Trump cabinet, the two most important positions in the diplomatic and geopolitical fields - National Security Advisor and Secretary of State - are held by former congressmen Michael Waltz and Marco Antonio Rubio, respectively. Waltz has long served on the House's Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees, while Rubio is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees, making close ties with traditional Republican supporters such as the energy and military-industrial complex. View of the "Hundred-Day New Policy 2.0" from the perspective of the four forces From a strategic perspective, the order of "Russia-Ukraine-> Houthis-> tariffs" conforms to the principle of "least resistance". Mediating the Russia-Ukraine conflict not only meets the demands of the tech right and MAGA groups to reduce foreign resource investments, but also aligns with the Jewish financial capital's wish to allocate more resources to the Middle East. Therefore, it faces the least resistance among the four forces mentioned above and naturally becomes the first foreign policy measure of the current U.S. government. However, the recent airstrikes against the Houthis in Yemen since mid-March have received almost equal support and opposition internally. This action aligns with the interests of the Republican establishment and Jewish financial capital, but contradicts the views of the tech right and MAGA group. The recent tariff war does not benefit the interests of the other three forces outside the MAGA group. From this perspective, Trump's choice of "Ukraine-> Houthis-> tariffs" reveals its internal logic. However, the lack of execution on the tactical level has put the "Hundred-Day New Policy 2.0" in a dilemma. According to diplomatic conventions, the signing of the US-Ukraine mining agreement on February 28 was supposed to be a "pro forma" ceremony, but unexpectedly, the signing was canceled after a quarrel erupted between the two sides. This has led to two more serious consequences: first, in the context of having to sign a mining agreement at the beginning of his term, there is a shortage of political figures in Ukraine willing to take on the presidency in the short term; second, the failure of the United States to compel Ukraine to compromise raises doubts about America's influence on its allies, thus weakening its ability to bring Russia back to the negotiating table. After the Russia-Ukraine mediation reached a deadlock, Trump quickly launched airstrikes against the Houthis in Yemen in order to showcase his achievements. And as "Signal Gate," involving suspected leaks about the Houthis airstrikes, emerged, Trump's eagerness may also be a vital reason for launching a tariff war against all countries in early April. From this series of events, it is evident that the current U.S. government has a serious problem with its ability to execute actions at the tactical level compared to its strategic planning ability. Recent changes and future speculation There may have been a shift in the influence of the four forces in the cabinet. On April 23, Elon Musk, who had been promoting government efficiency reforms in the DOGE department, announced in a financial teleconference that he would "redirect his focus to Tesla." Additionally, a report by the US Columbia Broadcasting Corporation (CBS) on April 18 revealed a list of a special tariff group being formed by Trump, including Treasury Secretary Bertrand and Commerce Secretary Lutnick, but not National Security Advisor Waltz, Secretary of State Rubio, or Navarro who led the tariff war under Trump. Do these signs indicate that Jewish financial capital has gained more influence in Trump's cabinet compared to the other three forces? This is a question worth paying attention to. If this judgment is correct, we need to consider the interests of Jewish financial capital more when judging the subsequent actions of the Trump administration. Short-term, Trump urgently needs to appease the stock and bond markets - two focal points. Since the tariff war in April, the US financial markets have experienced a downturn in stocks, bonds, and the dollar. From April 2 to April 21, the Dow, Nasdaq, and S&P 500 fell by 9.1%, 9.0%, and 8.4% respectively, the 10-year US Treasury yield rose by 25 basis points, and the US dollar index fell by 5.7%. Therefore, in the short term, it is most urgent for both Trump himself and Jewish financial capital to stabilize the financial markets. Considering the huge maturity pressures on US bonds and the 90-day tariff moratorium set by the Trump administration, if Trump wants to dispel fears in the financial markets, he must resolve two issues as soon as possible: gaining the support of the Federal Reserve's policy and achieving relaxation in economic and trade relations with other countries, including China. However, due to multiple conflicts with Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell on social media, Trump may face challenges in calming the financial markets as quickly as needed.Whether or not convincing the Federal Reserve in a timely manner is a major uncertainty. On the other hand, in the context of continuing to rely on the "winning education" to mobilize its political base - the MAGA faction - there is also a high level of uncertainty as to whether Trump can truly abandon his mistakes and engage in economic and trade dialogue with other countries on the basis of equality, respect, and reciprocity.It is necessary to closely monitor the changes in the Middle East situation. From the perspective of Jewish financial capital, in addition to stabilizing the financial markets, how to eliminate the so-called "threats faced by Israel" is also one of their important political demands. Looking at the recent situation, on the day before the indirect talks between the US, Iran, and Oman on April 12th, Steve Witkoff, the Middle East Special Envoy of the Trump administration and a Jewish former real estate developer, visited Moscow and was received by Russian President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. And a day later, the US announced the extension of economic sanctions against Russia for another year. Does this series of events mean that the Trump administration is trying to find possibilities for a breakthrough in the Middle East, is also a question worth paying attention to. The risk of escalating domestic political conflicts in the United States is also increasing. Trump's "100 Day New Policy 2.0" has stirred various contradictions and conflicts within the country. On one hand, the reform of DOGE has had a significant impact on departments like USAID and the CIA; on the other hand, several states have filed lawsuits against Trump for bypassing Congress to adjust tariffs. Of particular note recently, Bezent mentioned in an interview with Bloomberg on April 15th that "everything's on the table for taxes on wealthiest". Does this statement imply that with high fiscal pressure and slow progress in the policy of using tariffs to supplement the finances, the Trump administration will redistribute interests among various interest groups in the US domestically? If such a redistribution were to occur, would it lead to extreme events similar to the events in July last year, which were characterized by "life to the death" struggles, it is a potential risk that needs attention. Impact and Outlook on the Financial Markets The volatility in the US markets is difficult to control. Trump's volatile personality, while seemingly mastering the "art of the deal," has significantly increased the trust cost in his communication with the financial markets, the Federal Reserve, and other countries. With a significant amount of US Treasury bonds maturing this year, mere words of comfort that do not materialize may not have a sustained positive effect on the market. Against this backdrop, both international capital from Eurasia and private capital from the US may quietly withdraw from US financial assets, and this consistency in financial market actions can easily lead to extreme market fluctuations. European and Chinese assets are considered safe havens for investors. In Europe, the return of a large amount of European capital that was previously invested in the US to Europe is expected, and as the US's influence in the Russia-Ukraine situation declines, the increase in Europe's geopolitical diplomacy autonomy is expected to reduce the relevance of European and American assets. On the other hand, in China, during this round of responding to Trump's tariff bullying, China has shown its determination and ability to defend national interests. Compared to the high valuations of US assets, including the Chinese stock market, a large number of Chinese financial assets are still at historically low prices. In the context of global uncertainty, the certainty of the Chinese economy and financial markets seems particularly valuable.