The CSPC Dispatch - May 2, 2025
Welcome to The CSPC Dispatch!
In this edition, CSPC Senior Vice President, Peter Sparding, highlights an episode in the history of the American presidency that showcases the importance of interpersonal relations between presidents and other world leaders, while weighing the limitations such approaches may have in today’s world. In two further articles Bridget Peach and Caleb Mann, explore the dramatic rise to dominance of the Chinese electric vehicle industry and take a look back at the historical significance of the First 100-day marker in a presidential term.
As always, we hope that you will find the newsletter useful and would be delighted to receive your feedback or thoughts on how we can improve going forward.
Presidential History: FDR, Churchill, and the Power of Personal Diplomacy
by Peter Sparding
Franklin D. Roosevelt and Churchill in Quebec, Canada in September 1944. (Photo from the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library)
Benjamin Franklin is said to have quipped once that: “Guests, like fish, begin to smell after three days.” In the winter of 1941, a very prominent guest stayed far longer than this at the most prestigious address in Washington, DC. Yet, in this case, his host did not seem to mind. Winston Churchill, prime minister of the United Kingdom, had decided to visit Washington immediately after learning of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and the United States’ entry into World War II a day later. After initially voicing some concern over his safety during the transatlantic voyage, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in turn had invited the British leader to stay with him at the White House. Churchill left London on December 13, arrived in America ten days later, and did not return to the British capital until mid-January 1942. The entire journey had been shrouded in secrecy. Even the First Lady, Eleanor Roosevelt, had only been informed of the identity of the guest on the day of his arrival. In the end, FDR and Churchill were to spend nearly three weeks together at the White House, even celebrating Christmas together – roommates of the highest political level. “We live here as a big family in the greatest intimacy and informality”, Churchill wrote in a letter back to London.
As war raged in Europe and German troops reached the outskirts of Moscow, Churchill and his entourage turned parts of the White House into a temporary British headquarters, converting the Monroe Room into a map room and setting up the Lincoln Study as a workspace for his secretaries. As has often been described, the White House staff quickly adapted to the particular and at times quirky requests of the prime minister, including the reliable provision of sherry, scotch, and champagne during specific times of the day. And, adjusting to the prime minister’s unusual work schedule, Roosevelt would often stay up late into the night for discussions with his guests. According to most accounts, the two leaders developed a remarkably close working and personal relationship during this time, a factor that would play a significant role over subsequent years. At the same time, their staff worked on aligning the countries’ military strategies. Meeting at the Federal Reserve building for the so-called Arcadia conference, the highest military leaders from both sides discussed strategic priorities, future command structures, and tactical decisions over the course of three weeks, establishing the first framework for future cooperation between the allies. In the following years, Churchill would stay at the Roosevelt-White House several more times and even during his second stint as prime minister, then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower insisted on accommodating him at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Today, such close personal relationships between leaders appear almost quaint. And yet, the unusual governing style of President Donald J. Trump, has led many international counterparts to attempt to establish a personal relationship with the American leader. The example of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who visited President Trump at his home in Florida during the latter’s first time in office, has often been cited as the most successful of these endeavors. Still, even a close personal relationship between world leaders can only lead so far. As CSPC Senior Fellow Hidetoshi Azuma pointed out in a piece for the Dispatch in February, Abe’s standing with the American president “did little to prevent US withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Trump soon imposed steel and aluminum tariffs on Japan. What’s worse, Trump ignored Japanese sensitivities and interests when he started to directly deal with Kim Jong Un of North Korea much to Tokyo’s consternations.”
Close personal relationships certainly matter in international diplomacy, but in the end, they can only amplify, but not replace, long-established and durable connections between states, so that they may not rely on specific leaders for their success. After all, circumstances can change fast. Within months of meeting for the last time at the Yalta Conference in February 1945, Roosevelt would die, and Churchill lost re-election. Their successors, Harry Truman and Clement Attlee, would carry on the US-British relationship.
The American Presidency and the First 100 Days
By Caleb Mann and Bridget Peach
Former presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush, prior to the dedication of the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum in April 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
The first 100 days of a new presidency have long served as a key yardstick for judging a president’s “honeymoon” period, when election winds are strongest. Though there is no formal ‘100-day’ window, the early days of an incoming administration are critical for gaining momentum in executing the president’s agenda. President Donald Trump’s second term eclipsed 100 days on April 30, and many observers are already judging it historic in both ambition and disruption. A look at the first 100 days of notable past presidencies shows, however, just how tumultuous and often consequential they have proven.
George Washington (1st president, 1789-1797)
Our nation’s first president did not have the flashiest, nor the most turbulent first 100 days. George Washington did, however, lay the foundation for much of what we have come to know and expect of presidential leadership. With no precedent to act as a guiding hand, Washington essentially defined the role as he went along. While the office of the presidency was invested with awesome power, it also came with awesome responsibilities. Washington felt wholly unprepared to meet those responsibilities alone, so he created the first presidential cabinet of the United States. Washington leaned heavily on this council of trusted advisors, just as he had relied heavily on a circle of trusted subordinates during the war for independence. Washington’s early days also saw monumental legislation enacted such as the Judiciary and Tariff Acts of 1789; establishment of the Supreme Court; and creation of a national source of revenue. Perhaps most importantly, Washington established the democratic ethos of the presidency, being careful not to remind the young republic of its former monarchal overlords. He thus opted for the title “Mr. President” instead of a more regal epithet, exercised measured executive authority, and when the time came willingly surrendered power and peacefully left office.
Abraham Lincoln (16th President, 1861-1865)
Between the presidential election itself and when Abraham Lincoln took his seat in the Oval Office on March 5, 1861, seven southern states had already seceded from the Union. By the end of his first 100 days, four more had joined them. His inaugural address thus emphasized the importance of a fracturing unity. “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies,” he argued. When Lincoln made the call to resupply Fort Sumter, one of the last remaining federal stations in the Confederacy, the southerners opened fire citing breaches of presidential authority. After the official start of the Civil War, Lincoln assumed the role of commander-in-chief and in order to defend democracy, executed the greatest expansion of executive power the nation had yet seen. He called for 75,000 volunteer troops to fight the Confederates and, as a strong supporter of protective tariffs, took action to fund the war by supporting the Morrill Tariff. As the war waged on, Lincoln also worked to weaken the Confederacy through port blockages and a controversial suspension of habeas corpus.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (32nd President, 1933-1945)
Franklin D. Roosevelt, the president who famously coined the phrase “First 100 Days,” took office in 1933 amid the country’s most dire economic crisis. Within the first week, FDR launched the Emergency Banking Relief Act to reshape the U.S. banking system. The law helped certain banks reopen with government intervention and bolstered the Federal Reserve System’s responsibilities. FDR also worked to increase confidence in the government and federal systems through his regular “fireside chats” with the American people. FDR’s New Deal and a three-month special session of Congress led to the passage of 15 legislative bills in record time aimed at relief, recovery, and reform. Among these were the Glass-Steagall Act, designed to separate commercial and investment banking; the Civilian Conservation Corps, which hired unemployed men for public service projects on public lands; the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, which directed funds into state welfare programs; and the Tennessee Valley Authority, which sought to generate electricity in the south by building dams. FDR also combated the overproduction of agriculture on American farms with the Agricultural Adjustment Act, through which farmers who decreased production of certain crops would be compensated.
Harry Truman (33rd President, 1945-1953)
Harry Truman’s first day in office followed the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR). His address to a joint session of Congress mourned the loss of his predecessor but called upon members to continue the fight against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Just two weeks into his presidency, Truman was briefed on the Manhattan Project and the atomic bomb – foreshadowing the most consequential decision of his presidency. Prior to becoming president, Truman was not even aware of its existence. On the morning of Day 99, the Trinity Test at Los Alamos proved successful; on Day 100 as president, Truman attended the Potsdam Conference with Allied leaders and indirectly informed Russian President Joseph Stalin of the U.S.’s accomplishment of building a nuclear weapon. Truman subsequently authorized the use of atomic weapons against Japan, and, although they were not used until Day 116 and 117, that decision shaped his presidential legacy.
Ronald Reagan (40th President, 1981-1989)
Ronald Reagan assumed office in 1981 riding a wave of nearly unprecedented popularity (greater electoral victories were only won by FDR, Nixon, and later Reagan himself in 1984). Just minutes after being sworn in, Iran released the 52 American hostages they had been holding for over a year. The reasons for this were complex, but it allowed Reagan to achieve a major victory not even a day into his term (though the lion’s share of credit is owed to the diplomatic work of lame-duck President Jimmy Carter). Reagan’s first 100 days also nearly saw the end of his presidency. Just 69 days into his term, Reagan was shot, the bullet entering his ribcage and lungs. Reagan’s survival and flippant attitude towards the assassination attempt cemented the former actor’s status as a powerful American icon. From his first days in office, Reagan embraced a strong anti-communist stance, launched the largest peacetime defense buildup in American history, and laid the foundation for his consequential “supply-side” economic policy.
George W. Bush (43rd President, 2001-2009)
Few elections in American history surpass the drama and dispute of the 2000 Presidential Election. As the polls began to close in November 2000, it became clear that Florida would ultimately decide America’s 43rd President. Early in the morning of November 8, Al Gore called Bush and conceded the election. However, the Vice-President soon recanted his concession, as fewer than 600 votes separated the two candidates. A highly-criticized recounting process began soon after, reaffirming Bush’s victory, though by an even smaller margin. Gore’s team quickly requested manual recounts in certain counties. The ensuing legal disputes over the constitutionality of this request soon arrived at the Supreme Court, where the justices ruled 5-4 in favor of Bush. Gore conceded to Bush once again on December 13, 2001. The debacle in Florida delayed Bush’s transition, however, and his political agenda was bogged down. Bush’s first 100 days were notably devoid of the passage of major legislation, for instance, but they did lay the foundations for No Child Left Behind and a subsequent $1.6 trillion tax cut to come.
Barack Obama (44th President, 2009-2017)
Upon his inauguration as the first American president of color, Barack Obama inherited a world of woes: a devastated global economy, multiple wars, and vehement Congressional opposition determined to derail his presidency in its infancy. The 2008 Financial Crisis alone was the worst seen in America since the Great Depression. In response, Obama signed the massive American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) just weeks after his inauguration to “jumpstart” a moribund economy. Obama also embarked on efforts to repair the American image abroad, signing executive orders intended to close the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention center and prohibit torture as an interrogation technique. Perhaps most importantly, the administration held a White House Health Summit in March, accruing momentum for what would become the defining legislation of the Obama administration: The Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”). The remainder of Obama’s first 100 days were characterized by greater federal involvement in the economy, progressive domestic policy, and an effort to move U.S. foreign policy beyond the post-9/11 Global War on Terror (GWOT).
Donald Trump (45th President, 2017-2021)
The first Trump administration arrived in the West Wing after an election that shocked voters and political pundits. The billionaire businessman’s defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016 was just the 5th time that a President was elected while losing the popular vote. With bold promises and majorities in both chambers, Trump’s presidency began with an executive order, signed on his first day in office, to begin repealing Obamacare. However, this attempt to erase his predecessor’s landmark domestic achievement ultimately failed in Congress. Trump ruled largely through executive orders, moving at break-neck speed to assert his administration’s agenda, which included an unprecedented travel ban on select Islamic nations. Trump’s early days also saw military action, including strikes on Syrian military targets and the dropping of the largest non-nuclear weapon in Afghanistan ever used by the United States. The early days of the Trump White House was plagued with staff turnover, most notably the dismissal of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Perhaps most consequentially Trump—thanks to the hardball tactics of then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)—was able to acquire a Supreme Court nomination that tradition dictated should have gone to Barack Obama. Justice Neil Gorsuch would be the first of three justices appointed to the nation’s highest bench under Trump.
Joe Biden (46th President, 2021-2025)
Joe Biden’s entrance into the White House was preceded by the events of January 6, 2021, when angry rioters stormed the Capitol building in an effort to block the results of the 2020 presidential election. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the election brought an unprecedented number of mail-in ballots—and with them, accusations of election fraud that the courts generally rejected. In his inaugural address, Biden condemned the “uncivil war” that was bringing violence to the already-polarized United States. Upon taking office, Biden also set a goal of providing 100 million COVID-19 vaccines to the American people within the first 100 days of his presidency. After 58 days Biden met that promise and promptly doubled the number. By April 30, 2021, over 54 percent of American adults had been inoculated. Perhaps the most notable of the 11 pieces of legislation that Biden signed into law is the American Rescue Plan. Also known as the COVID-19 Stimulus Package, the law distributed $1.9 trillion to U.S. businesses, state governments and individual American citizens in an effort to combat unemployment and public health concerns stemming from the pandemic.
Donald Trump (47th President, 2025-2029)
Donald Trump’s second administration has come out of the gates at breakneck speed, relying largely on executive orders rather than slower but more sustainable legislative action. He began by empowering the Department of Government Efficiency, announced during his inauguration speech and led by billionaire Elon Musk, to take a “chainsaw” to the federal government to slash spending. Budgets were cut by the tens of billions of dollars, government programs dramatically downsized or eliminated altogether (including the U.S. Agency for International Development, the chief conduit to much U.S. humanitarian aid). Next came immigration and the Laken Riley Act, signed into law on January 29, 2025, which requires the Department of Homeland Security to detain illegal immigrants who have committed a crime. The Act marked the beginning of Trump’s strict border policy and mass deportations, and the targeting of sanctuary cities to force compliance with federal immigration laws. In terms of foreign policy, Trump has struggled to fulfill his promise to end the war in Ukraine on “day one,” in Most concerning for economists has been Trump’s claim of emergency powers to unilaterally wield tariffs and launch a trade war on allies and adversaries alike, causing dramatic fluctuations in global trade and predictions of a likely U.S. recession.
Legacy
Throughout the nearly 250-year history of the United States, the first 100 days have proven a valuable lens through which to view the ambitions and aspirations of an incoming administration. From George Washington’s precedent-setting presidency; to the wartime leadership of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt; to the attempted assassination that nearly cut short Ronald Reagan’s consequential presidency; this critical early period has offered important clues to how presidents will react to profound challenges and crises. The first 100 days may not predetermine the remainder of a president’s term, but they offer invaluable reference for what path may lie ahead.
Caleb Mann is an intern at CSPC and junior at Virginia Tech majoring in History with a minor in Political Science. Bridget Peach is an intern at CSPC and junior at the University of Georgia majoring in International Affairs and Russian.
The Chinese Auto Industry’s Rise to Dominance
By Bridget Peach and Caleb Mann
In recent years, China’s automotive industry has skyrocketed, far outpacing competitors and profoundly disrupting the global sector. The coupling of massive and rapidly growing production capacity and lower costs on China’s part has left the United States and the European Union struggling to keep up.
The People’s Republic of China has not always been a dominant automotive producer. Prior to sweeping economic reforms enacted under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, the Chinese automotive industry was a closed market, with state-owned manufacturers far more concerned with producing trucks and vehicles for industrial and military use.
Following Xiaoping’s reforms and the influx of international investment, the technological gap between Chinese and Western/Japanese producers became woefully apparent. International firms raced to gain access to China’s vast labor and commercial markets, and in return, China would enter joint-ventures with automotive companies to gain vital technological knowledge.
The rapid urbanization and explosion of consumer purchasing power in the 1990s drastically increased domestic demand for cars. However, officials of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) had a desire for industrial self-reliance. Thus, the Communist party passed industry regulation that imposed strict conditions on any foreign companies seeking to do business in China. These policies, coupled with increasing state subsidies had tremendous effect. By 2000, China had overhauled its automotive production, exceeding 2 million units. Only nine years later, China surpassed the United States as the world’s largest automotive producer.
In 2015, the CCP announced “Made in China 2025,” a broad strategic mandate to innovate production and manufacturing. The comprehensive initiative aimed to move China away from cheap, low-quality production to high-tech manufacturing. The plan outlined ten priority sectors deemed necessary for China’s long-term economic success–one of which was electric vehicles (EVs).
In the decade since, China has become the global leader in both EV production and exports. Yet, the extraordinary scale of China’s EV market and production capacity is in large part the result of state intervention – a series of deliberate subsidies and incentives aimed at stimulating EV production. In fact, state support has been essential, with reports suggesting the Chinese government provided over $200 billion in aid.
In the process, Chinese manufacturers have also been able to reap the rewards of vertical integration. Leading companies such as BYD Auto and CATL have taken commanding positions in mineral refinement and battery production. As a result, Chinese manufacturers have largely succeeded in displacing foreign competition by controlling multiple phases of production, thereby reducing production costs and simultaneously upscaling production.
According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the Chinese auto industry is well on its way to global dominance, even though it is not even operating at its full potential. Current annual global demand for cars is estimated around 90 million, with Chinese internal demand hovering steadily around 25 million. And yet, while China was exporting around one million cars in 2020, today that number has increased to six million. Overall, China now produces over 30 million cars annually but has the capacity to produce nearly double that.
One of the main reasons stopping China from producing at capacity and exporting all the cars exceeding its internal demand? Politics. With U.S. and European auto industries already struggling to catch up, policymakers have placed tariffs on Chinese cars producers – who they maintain have after all only been able to achieve their dominance via unfair state subsidies – to prevent them from beating out and potentially crushing domestic ones. To combat China’s excessive auto exports, the European Union has enforced anti-subsidy tariffs that change in percentage based on the amount of subsidies each company has received. In 2024, President Biden enacted 100% tariffs on EVs from China in an attempt to build up American EV manufacturing and throw a wrench in Chinese auto exports. However, tariffs by themselves may not be enough to keep Chinese cars out of Western markets. Chinese EV production costs are so low that even an EV tariffed at 100% might cost less than an EV produced anywhere else in the world. Producing an EV in China over Germany, according to UBS, requires 77% less labor costs, 29% less battery costs, and 62% less factory costs, to name a few. China’s top producer, BYD, sells its model “Seagull” domestically for $12,000. With the 100% auto tariffs, the price tag would only rise to approximately $24,000, a number still below the average cost of an American- or German-made EV.
Yet, a prospective EV-buyer looking for a BYD “Seagull” will not have much luck in the United States. Why? To put it simply: BYD is not interested in the U.S. market. While tariffs have certainly upped market prices in the United States, there are other drivers behind the premier auto producer’s hesitancy. First, the American market has not fully embraced EVs, with around one-third of the population expressing interest in purchasing one. On the contrary, incentives from the Chinese government have worked, with their population increasingly preferring EVs over traditional vehicles. Currently, half of car-buying individuals in China prefer EVs, leaving more traditional cars in the dust. Secondly, the final days of the Biden administration brought a ban for certain “connected vehicles” from China and Russia on the grounds of national security. With the ban set to launch in 2027, it is doubtful that any “Seagulls” will find their way to U.S. roads in the near future. Finally, U.S. and European consumers alike have a deep skepticism toward Chinese-made cars especially in regard to quality.
BYD has instead decided to break ground in Mexico, having announced plans to build a manufacturing plant there. In a less politically-charged environment with barriers around every corner, BYD hopes to expand its worldwide markets (already in Europe, Latin American, and Australia, to name a few) while continuing to avoid U.S. territory.
While BYD might not get its foot in U.S. markets, that does not mean there are no Chinese-produced cars and, more specifically, EVs occupying dealerships across America. Brands like Buick, Volvo, Polestar, and GM rely on China for cars and auto parts at various levels of the supply chain. President Biden’s 100% tariffs on EVs remain, but President Trump went one step further to target traditional ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles with a 25% tariff as well. He remains determined to cut off U.S. reliance on foreign supply chains–especially in the auto industry–through incentives. For the foreseeable future, it thus seems highly unlikely to see any Chinese cars driving on U.S. roads.
Caleb Mann is an intern at CSPC and junior at Virginia Tech majoring in History with a minor in Political Science. Bridget Peach is an intern at CSPC and junior at the University of Georgia majoring in International Affairs and Russian.
CSPC opens applications for ‘25-26 Innovation & at-large fellows
We are delighted to share the continuation of two, fully-funded pathways for college students to apply for our Presidential Fellows Program!
The At-Large Program allows students who do not attend one of our partner institutions to apply for the Presidential Fellows Program. The initiative was created to broaden the diversity of our cohort and expand access to students who might not otherwise have the opportunity to participate. Past Fellows have come from schools such as Wabash College, Saint Louis University, and Spelman College—none of which have formal partnerships with CSPC. For more information on eligibility and how to apply for the At-Large Program, click here.
The Innovation Fellowship provides a pathway for students from a STEM background to join the Presidential Fellows program and gain exposure to the federal policy-making process. With the increased role of advanced technologies in our society, the political system will require more technical expertise from policy practitioners. CSPC aims to provide the stepping stones for STEM students to engage in the policy sphere. For more information on eligibility and how to apply for the Innovation Fellowship, click here.
Over the course of an academic year, the selected students will join the Presidential Fellows program from September 2025-May 2026. During this time, they will participate in monthly webinars, complete independent research with the help of a program-assigned mentor, and attend a 5-day all-expenses-paid conference in Washington, D.C. This year, the fellowship will also incorporate the country’s Quarter Millennial Anniversary into the various aspects of the program.
We highly encourage you to share this information with any students you think would be interested in the program. The applications are now open and will close on July 1, at 11:59 p.m. EST.