As we approach the milestone of President Donald Trump’s first one hundred days back in the White House, it is time to assess the impact his administration has had on both policy and markets.
His January promise to deliver “the most extraordinary first 100 days of any presidency in American history” set high expectations, referencing the standard established by Franklin D. Roosevelt, who during his first hundred days pushed fifteen major pieces of legislation through Congress to combat the Great Depression.
Governing by executive order
Trump’s second term has been marked by aggressively executed actions. Since January 20, 2025, he has signed 124 executive orders, 29 proclamations, and 27 memoranda at the time of writing, while relatively little significant legislation has passed—apart from the Laken Riley Act and measures to reverse Biden-era regulations.
This “shock-and-awe” approach has resulted in sweeping policy changes targeting immigration, international trade, federal spending, and executive authority. Major initiatives include imposing broad import tariffs, establishing the “Department of Government Efficiency,” scaling back USAID programs, declaring a national emergency at the southern border, challenging birthright citizenship, attempting to deport student protesters, and eliminating diversity programs within the federal government.
Markets in turmoil
Every correction is different, yet many things stay the same. A technical recession now appears likely. Last month’s correction and the recent market volatility bear striking similarities to previous technical recessions. The recent equity market decline seems largely policy-driven, particularly due to trade conflicts and uncertainty surrounding tariffs.
The recent ninety-day reprieve on certain Chinese tariffs offered temporary relief, though the administration has not abandoned its broader tariff strategy. The sell-off in recent weeks showed signs of a capitulation phase—often seen ahead of or alongside technical recessions. Since 2010, we’ve experienced several technical recessions with similar market behavior:
The 2011 European debt crisis
In 2011, global markets were hit by the European debt crisis. What began as concern over Greece’s sovereign debt quickly spread to other economies such as Italy, Spain, and Portugal. Fears of a complete eurozone collapse triggered a market drop of roughly nineteen percent. However, this correction was largely a market reaction to policy uncertainty—not fundamental economic weakness in the United States. Once the European Central Bank pledged to do “whatever it takes” to save the euro, markets recovered.
The 2015 oil price crash
In 2015, we witnessed a dramatic drop in oil prices, falling from over one hundred dollars per barrel to under thirty. This price shock triggered a market correction of around fifteen percent, as energy stocks plunged and concerns arose over potential debt defaults in the energy sector. Despite sector-specific issues, the broader U.S. economy continued to grow. The correction proved temporary as oil prices stabilized and markets adjusted to the new reality of lower energy prices.
The 2018 rate normalization
At the end of 2018, the market declined nearly twenty percent as the Federal Reserve persisted with its rate normalization policy despite signs of economic slowdown. Investors feared that aggressive rate hikes would stifle growth. This correction was a textbook example of a market reacting to monetary policy rather than underlying economic weakness. Once the Fed adopted a more dovish tone and signaled it would be “patient” with future increases, markets quickly rebounded in 2019.
The 2022 Fed tightening
In 2022, we again saw a market correction when the Federal Reserve began raising interest rates to combat inflation following the pandemic. The S&P 500 fell by about nineteen percent as investors grappled with higher borrowing costs and their impact on corporate earnings. Despite the steep decline, the U.S. economy remained resilient, supported by a strong labor market and healthy consumer spending. Once the market accepted that rate hikes were necessary to reduce inflationary pressure, the recovery began.
The current correction
Current market conditions show notable similarities to these earlier patterns, suggesting we are once again experiencing a cyclical correction rather than a fundamental economic collapse. As with previous technical recessions, today’s volatility appears to be more driven by policy uncertainty—particularly around tariffs and trade—than by structural economic weakness.
Implications for investors
For investors, it remains crucial not to sell in panic. Unlike structural economic problems, policy-driven market disruptions can quickly reverse when strategies change. While concerning, the current volatility fits the profile of earlier technical corrections that proved to be temporary rather than systemic. As we approach the symbolically important one-hundred-day mark on April 30, investors should watch for potential policy adjustments that may signal a reversal—while keeping perspective on the historical resilience of markets in similarly uncertain times.
Han Dieperink is chief investment officer at Auréus Vermogensbeheer. He previously served as chief investment officer at Rabobank and Schretlen & Co.