What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
May 26, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump's Memorial Day post on Truth Social is a jarring and incendiary political broadside cloaked in the guise of a holiday message. Instead of honoring the sacrifices of military service members, the purpose of Memorial Day, the post is weaponized to attack political opponents, the judiciary, and immigrants using dehumanizing, hyperbolic, and inflammatory rhetoric.
The message begins with a startling contradiction: “HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY TO ALL, INCLUDING THE SCUM…” This juxtaposition alone betrays the solemn tone traditionally expected of presidential figures on national days of remembrance. Referring to fellow Americans—however politically opposed—as “scum” degrades civil discourse and politicizes a day intended for unity and reflection.
The post makes sweeping, unsubstantiated claims about immigration, including the assertion that “21,000,000 million people” entered the country illegally under Democratic governance, many of them “criminals and the mentally insane.” Not only is this numerically nonsensical (21,000,000 million would mean 21 trillion), but it revives dangerous and false stereotypes that conflate immigration with criminality. These claims are unsupported by credible data and echo nativist fearmongering rather than fact-based policy critique.
Trump also levels a reckless attack on the judiciary, accusing judges of deliberately keeping violent criminals in the country and labeling them as “USA hating” and ideologically “sick.” Such language is not only inflammatory—it undermines the legitimacy of the judicial system and encourages public distrust in democratic institutions. Equating legal decisions with a desire to “rob, murder, and rape again” crosses a line from critique into demonization.
The final section of the message turns to vague self-congratulation, asserting that “great progress” has been made in the past four months—presumably a reference to his second term—without offering specifics. The assurance that “America will soon be safe and great again” attempts to cast himself as a redeemer, even as the rest of the post fans division and dread.
In summary, this post represents a gross misuse of a national holiday message. Rather than expressing reverence or unity, it traffics in rage, fear, and hyperbole. It turns Memorial Day—a day for honoring the fallen—into a political battlefield. The tone is divisive, the language inflammatory, and the content devoid of the dignity the occasion deserves.
In two separate Truth Social posts, Donald Trump escalated his ongoing attacks on elite academic institutions—specifically Harvard—by threatening to revoke $3 billion in federal grant money and accusing the university of harboring antisemitism and protecting “radicalized lunatics.” While the idea of investing in trade schools is a legitimate policy discussion, Trump presents it not as a constructive initiative but as a punitive measure intended to punish Harvard. The framing is overtly retaliatory, grounded more in political retribution than in any articulated educational strategy. His claim that Harvard is “very antisemitic” is unsubstantiated and dangerously inflammatory, reducing a complex issue involving campus speech and protest into a broad-brush institutional condemnation. This type of rhetoric lacks both nuance and factual support, and it serves to stoke public outrage rather than foster dialogue.
The second post veers into xenophobic and authoritarian territory, as Trump demands a list of foreign students from Harvard in order to identify “radicalized lunatics” who should not be allowed back into the United States. This sweeping characterization is reminiscent of McCarthyist suspicion and treats foreign students not as individuals but as a potential fifth column. Such rhetoric weaponizes immigration policy and paints academic diversity as a national security threat, despite no public evidence to support these claims. His assertion that Harvard is delaying the release of student data “for good reason” implies a conspiracy without offering proof, further fueling distrust and division.
Finally, Trump’s accusation that Harvard has “shopped around” for a favorable judge continues his pattern of undermining judicial legitimacy. His repeated attacks on the independence of the judiciary whenever rulings do not align with his agenda erode public confidence in legal institutions. The closing remark—“the Government will, in the end, WIN!”—carries an ominous authoritarian tone, suggesting that power rather than law will dictate outcomes. Taken together, these posts are not serious policy proposals but a mix of political score-settling, xenophobic dog whistles, and authoritarian messaging. They reflect an increasingly dangerous pattern in Trump’s public communications: the fusion of grievance, conspiracy, and institutional sabotage for personal and political gain.
Two more Truth Social posts from Donald Trump employ hyperbole, nationalistic optimism, and an aggressive promotional tone characteristic of his public rhetoric. However, both posts invite scrutiny due to their vagueness, lack of evidence, and exaggeration.
In the first post, Trump claims that countries “from all over the world” want to make trade deals with the United States, calling it “a beautiful thing to see.” While this sentiment plays well as a morale booster for his base, it omits critical detail. Which countries? What kind of trade deals? Are they in negotiation, or merely in exploratory talks? Without naming any specific partners or citing progress on actual deals, the claim remains unsubstantiated. Trade negotiations are typically complex, protracted, and often contentious — not the simplistic parade of international enthusiasm this message implies.
The second post escalates the rhetoric further, declaring that the U.S. is undergoing “one of the greatest and fastest comebacks in history,” gaining unprecedented global respect. Again, this assertion is delivered without supporting metrics. The suggestion that the U.S. has achieved a historically fast economic recovery in just four months contradicts economic data trends, which generally show incremental gains rather than explosive rebounds. Moreover, the phrase “many Trillions of Dollars of Investment” is nebulous and likely inflated, especially since large-scale capital investment in industrial facilities typically unfolds over years, not months. The phrase “THE GOLDEN AGE OF AMERICA!!!” is a clear rhetorical flourish but invites skepticism without a clearer definition of what it entails — economically, politically, or socially.
These posts prioritize emotional appeal and self-congratulation over factual grounding. They reflect a political strategy aimed at projecting dominance and success rather than conveying verifiable information. While they may serve to energize Trump’s supporters, they lack the transparency and credibility expected of serious policy or economic communication.
Donald Trump’s Truth Social post announcing the pardon of Sheriff Scott Jenkins is a politically incendiary and legally troubling statement that exemplifies his continued effort to delegitimize the U.S. justice system and wield presidential powers as instruments of personal loyalty rather than public responsibility. In the post, Trump asserts that Jenkins, who was convicted of public corruption charges, was “dragged through HELL by a Corrupt and Weaponized Biden DOJ,” offering no factual basis for this serious accusation. Instead of providing context about the nature of the charges or the evidence presented in court, Trump reduces the legal process to a partisan attack narrative, accusing the Department of Justice and the presiding judge of misconduct and ideological bias. He claims that Judge Robert Ballou refused to allow exculpatory evidence during the trial and “went on a tirade,” yet offers no legal substantiation or procedural detail to support this allegation. Such claims, without evidence, amount to a smear against the judiciary and erode public trust in judicial independence.
The language Trump uses—calling judges “Radical Left,” suggesting they admit only what “they feel like,” and referring to political opponents as “monsters”—is hyperbolic and dehumanizing. This emotional rhetoric is intended to inflame rather than inform and to replace legal reasoning with personal grievance. By portraying Jenkins as a “wonderful person” who “doesn’t deserve to spend a single day in jail,” Trump frames the pardon not as a correction of injustice based on facts, but as a reward for perceived loyalty. There is no mention of any formal clemency petition, review process, or objective criteria—only Trump’s personal view of Jenkins’ character. This reinforces a pattern seen since Trump assumed office on January 20th, in which pardons are frequently issued to political allies and personal associates rather than individuals selected through the traditional Justice Department review.
Moreover, the post represents a dangerous politicization of law enforcement. Jenkins, a sitting sheriff, was convicted of serious crimes related to bribery and abuse of public office—conduct that undermines the public’s trust in policing. Rather than acknowledge this or justify the pardon on legal grounds, Trump portrays Jenkins as a martyr of “Biden’s DOJ,” continuing his broader narrative that any enforcement action against conservatives is inherently illegitimate. This erodes the concept of impartial justice and encourages the view that accountability depends not on conduct, but on political affiliation.
Most troubling is the message this sends about the rule of law. By presenting clemency as a political lifeline rather than a constitutional remedy grounded in justice, Trump normalizes the use of presidential power to shield allies from legal consequences. It suggests that corruption can be overlooked as long as the individual is politically loyal. In doing so, Trump undermines the principle that no one is above the law and further entrenches a vision of executive authority untethered from constitutional norms. The post is not merely a public relations defense but a rejection of democratic accountability and a blueprint for authoritarian patronage politics.
Donald Trump's 2025 Memorial Day address at Arlington National Cemetery was marred by a fundamental lack of discipline, tone, and reverence, turning what should have been a solemn national tribute into a disjointed mix of personal boasting, campaign-style rhetoric, and awkwardly delivered eulogies. While Trump did manage to include emotional stories of fallen service members, such as Senior Master Sergeant Elroy Harworth, Corporal Ryan McGee, and Senior Chief Petty Officer Shannon Kent, these moments of tribute were undercut by his inability to stay focused on the purpose of the occasion. Instead of honoring the fallen with consistency and dignity, Trump used the event to elevate himself, digress into political grievances, and draw attention to his presidential comeback and future plans.
The most glaring issue was the repeated insertion of self-congratulatory commentary that had no place at a military cemetery on Memorial Day. Trump's remarks about “fixing” the country after a “hard four years,” celebrating his return to office, and crowing about reclaiming the Olympics and World Cup were wildly inappropriate. The line “God did that” in reference to his political return came across as both arrogant and tone-deaf, especially juxtaposed with the stories of young soldiers who died in battle. Rather than positioning himself as a steward of national memory, Trump hijacked the moment to promote his own narrative of vindication and triumph. This act bordered on self-absorption and dishonor to the day’s true meaning.
Structurally, the speech was a mess. It rambled without coherence, lurching from heartfelt stories to casual, offhand remarks like “he’s a tough cookie” and “she really stands out,” phrases that felt jarringly informal given the gravity of the ceremony. The transitions between honoring the dead and praising himself were abrupt and clumsy. Sentences were often incomplete, grammatically muddled, or circular, and the overall pacing was inconsistent. Trump’s delivery further compounded the problem, relying on repetition and filler rather than meaningful reflection. It was clear he was ad-libbing large sections, and the result was a lack of clarity and emotional control.
Even when Trump attempted poetic language—“charged into the valley of death and rose into the arms of angels”—the effect was undermined by its theatricality and lack of restraint. These rhetorical flourishes often sounded rehearsed rather than heartfelt, as if he were trying to mimic the cadence of presidential tradition without the discipline or sincerity required to sustain it. His brief reference to America’s 250th anniversary should have been a unifying theme, connecting the founding generation to today’s service members, but he squandered it with yet another aside about how unfortunate it was that he “missed that second term,” before bizarrely pivoting back to sports events and campaign nostalgia.
Ultimately, Trump’s Memorial Day remarks served more as a campaign speech in disguise than a genuine national commemoration. While the inclusion of individual service member stories did provide moments of human connection, they were overwhelmed by self-serving detours and undisciplined delivery. Rather than reflect the solemnity of Arlington and the sacrifice of those buried there, Trump’s speech diminished the occasion with personal aggrandizement, tonal confusion, and political overreach. A Memorial Day address demands humility, clarity, and reverence—qualities this speech sorely lacked.
He is not well.