Is Donald Trump a man of progress or limited vision?

As he passes a milestone 100 days as president, we asked Adam Creighton, economics reporter for the Australian newspaper, and Gorana Grgic, lecturer in US politics and foreign policy at the US Studies Centre, to assess how it's gone so far.

Adam Creighton: Trump, the progressive tax reformer

If Donald Trump gets his way on tax reform he will implement a left-leaning policy that's been rattling around university economics faculties for a generation. It could be his biggest legacy.

Left-leaning? Trump?

The policy House Republicans have appropriated was first proposed by tax professor Alan Auerbach in 2010, and published by the progressive Centre for American Progress. It tackles the current dysfunctional US corporate tax system, with a headline rate of 35 per cent — levied, in theory, on US firms' global income.

Auerbach's policy is for a destination-based cash flow tax (DBCFT). It has three main virtues: simplicity, efficiency, and pretty much the obliteration of the incentive to shift production to lower-tax jurisdictions. It kills tax arbitrage. No country so far has had the guts to implement it.

Taxing cash flows — all revenues minus all costs over a given period — is vastly simpler than taxing so-called profits, which hinge on depreciation schedules and the vagaries of accrual accounting.

For instance, allowing the immediate expensing of all costs, including major machinery, gives business a strong incentive to invest.

President Trump has positioned himself as a people's president. ( Pool/Getty Images )

And cash flow taxes remove the implicit subsidy to debt too. In the Republican proposal, net interest expenses would not be deductible, putting these on an equal footing with dividends, which aren't either.

But the most dramatic change would be the exclusion of all cross-border transactions from the corporate tax base.

Applying the cash flow tax only to domestic transactions (the "destination-based" part) removes the incentive for businesses to locate (or, sometimes more accurately, appear to locate) their production in lower tax jurisdictions.

"Corporations would have an incentive to shift profits to the US, even from the tax havens that have been the focus of so much attention in recent years," wrote Auerbach in his 2010 paper, noting his proposal made competition over corporate tax rates irrelevant. Hear more RN's full coverage of Trump's first 100 days in office. Read more Read more

The place of consumption doesn't readily shift, so nations would have more freedom to set whatever corporate tax rates they desired.

It wouldn't matter where Google or Ford choose to locate their management, their intellectual capital or their so-called production. Their US sales would be taxed in the US regardless — the only deductions permitted against those US sales would be for costs (such as wages) incurred in the US.

The simplicity of the DBCFT might put many tax lawyers and accountants out of work, but it would provide a boon for lower-paid jobs given the incentive to shift costs to the US.

Currently it is cheaper to make goods in China and export them to the US now. If those costs of production are no longer tax deductible, companies will have no excuse not to put Americans first.

Gorana Grgic: Trump, the short-term thinker

Shortly after Donald J Trump's inauguration, the White House published a foreign policy manifesto which listed three key objectives — rebuilding the military, forming new partnerships and alliances, and escalating the fight against terrorism.

So far, the Trump administration's track record has demonstrated a clear embrace of military solutions.

This has been evident in loosening the rules of engagement in counter-terrorism efforts in the Middle East and North Africa, stepping up military presence and launching punitive strikes in Syria, and dropping of the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (the so-called "mother of all bombs") in Afghanistan. N Korean nuke could hit US North Korea could have a weapon capable of striking the US west coast within four years, according to a former CIA officer. Read more Read more

What is painfully missing is a discussion of a more comprehensive and coherent strategy and the next steps in conflict resolution, particularly with regards to the war in Syria.

Equally, the administration's "skinny" budget proposal, which tabled a nearly 10 per cent increase for the Defence Department and 30 per cent cuts to the State Department and the USAID, sent an unequivocal message about the premium placed on hard power rather than diplomacy and foreign assistance.

Another striking feature of Trump's first 100 days is the significant reversal of the administration's stances on Russia, China and the North American Treaty Organisation (NATO).

Reaching out to old enemies, which was supposed to be a code word for Trump's version of Russia reset, quickly caved under the pressure of multiple investigations of Russia's meddling in the 2016 election and allegations of collusion between Trump campaign associates and the Kremlin.

Russia's continuing patronage of the Assad regime does little to help normalise relations.

Some consider Trump to be an visionless populist. ( Mark Wilson/Getty Images )

On the other hand, the growing instability on the Korean peninsula due to North Korean missile tests, has forced Trump to moderate his tone on China.

The president also surprised everyone by declaring support for the NATO, despite an extensive campaign record of deeming the alliance obsolete. It would be naïve to think these recent changes in attitudes will translate into fixed policy positions, given the number of instances that contradict them.

Overall, the experience is disappointing for those who thought that president Trump would be a neo-isolationist. The administration is not shying away from international engagement; it has just opted for an approach that prioritises coercion over cooperation.

The early days of the presidency have also highlighted the divisions within the cabinet, as well as a disconnect between the president and members of his administration. Such inconsistencies paired with relative unpredictability of responses make it hard to situate the early policy record within a broader doctrine.

However, there is a recurring theme in the president's musings on foreign policy; a rejection of the idea that the US should shoulder an asymmetric burden in order to maintain international stability (from which it ultimately benefits) and the implication that "self-help" is the path forward.

As the administration moves beyond its first one hundred days in power, this is perhaps the only consistent principle guiding policymaking in the months and years ahead.