What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
April 10, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump held a cabinet meeting at the White House that was an exercise in performative governance, characterized by rambling monologues, unchecked exaggerations, and a parade of cabinet officials offering sycophantic praise. Rather than a focused policy session, the meeting functioned more like a campaign event, with Trump presenting himself as a singular savior of American industry, sovereignty, and security. Economic claims dominated the discussion, with the President asserting that consumer prices were down, energy was cheap, and there was “no inflation”—a narrative starkly at odds with official economic data. Trump repeatedly claimed that the U.S. was making “$2 to $3.5 billion a day,” though he provided no fiscal context, leaving it unclear whether he was referring to tariff revenue or speculative GDP gains. He touted tariffs as the cornerstone of his economic strategy, portraying them as both a revenue engine and a means of punishing foreign competitors. Yet his willingness to purchase ships from foreign allies while railing against offshoring exposes a contradiction in his nationalist platform.
Throughout the meeting, Trump and his officials portrayed public institutions—particularly universities, environmental agencies, and regulatory bodies—as corrupted or useless. He railed against elite universities like Harvard and Columbia, accusing them of mismanaging public funds and promoting anti-American ideology. Billions in federal funding are now being withheld from these institutions as part of what amounts to a political crackdown on perceived dissent. At the Environmental Protection Agency, deregulation was celebrated as a means of economic liberation. The EPA chief bragged about canceling $22 billion in Biden-era climate initiatives, reframing environmental policy solely as a cost burden rather than a public good. Similar rhetoric emerged from the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services, where officials obsessed over alleged welfare fraud and pseudo-scientific theories about the causes of autism and chronic illness without context or evidence. Scientific institutions like the CDC, FDA, and NIH were openly undermined in favor of ideological crusades targeting fluoride, food dyes, cell phones, and SNAP benefits.
The meeting also showcased the weaponization of government agencies. The Justice Department was positioned not only as a tool to fight cartels and organized crime but as an instrument to retaliate against individuals "going after Tesla,” strongly implying politically motivated prosecutions on behalf of Elon Musk. Homeland Security and the DOJ outlined sweeping deportation plans under the pretense of “self-deportation,” with promises to remove up to 21 million people from the U.S.—a goal framed in language that was often dehumanizing. Student visa holders engaging in activism were described as “lunatics” to be removed, not evaluated based on legal merit. Meanwhile, the intelligence community was tasked with rooting out “weaponization” from within, including the declassification of files related to the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy—an effort pitched as transparency but likely to further fuel conspiratorial narratives.
Trump's fixation on trade, particularly with China, ran through the meeting like a central nervous system. He declared a “trade emergency,” citing a trillion-dollar Chinese surplus and claiming that no other administration had the courage to act. Yet his remarks were filled with ahistorical revisionism, blaming past presidents for selling out American manufacturing and repeatedly stating that “nobody’s ever done this before.” Despite occasional diplomatic overtures—such as voicing “great respect” for President Xi—Trump portrayed China as the ultimate adversary, accusing it of manipulating markets, stealing technology, and even sending soldiers into Ukraine, though he offered no evidence. The president also teased negotiations with the EU and floated the possibility of using personal legal firms paid by his campaign donors to assist in trade deals—a potential ethical conflict presented casually and without concern.
The meeting was less about policy than power. Trump used the gathering to assert dominance over his cabinet, demonstrate loyalty tests, and reinforce a narrative that the federal government is a corrupt machine only he can fix. Economic policy was boiled down to tariffs and deregulation, immigration policy to mass expulsions and punishment, and education policy to defund ideological enemies. What emerged was a picture of an administration driven by grievance, nostalgia, and absolute control—an administration that sees governance not as a public duty but as a stage for spectacle.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected an emergency appeal from the Trump administration, ordering the government to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador. Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national, had been granted protection from deportation by an immigration court due to credible fears that he would face persecution from violent gangs in his home country. Despite the active court order, immigration officials deported him, later conceding that his removal had been a mistake. Since arriving in El Salvador, Abrego Garcia has been detained in a notorious prison known for gang violence and poor conditions, raising serious concerns for his safety.
In its appeal, the Trump administration argued that, although the deportation was erroneous, it was now beyond the government's ability to reverse. The Supreme Court disagreed, effectively reaffirming that the government remains obligated to comply with court orders and correct unlawful deportations. Central to the administration’s justification was its claim that Abrego Garcia was affiliated with the MS-13 gang—a claim his attorneys strongly deny, noting there is no evidence to support the allegation and that Abrego Garcia has never been charged with or convicted of any crime.
The case highlights a significant due process failure within the immigration system and raises broader questions about accountability when government actions violate legal protections. It also underscores the human rights risks faced by individuals deported to countries where they face credible threats, especially when their removal occurs in defiance of judicial rulings. The Supreme Court’s decision signals that such violations cannot be excused simply because the harm has already been inflicted and that the U.S. government remains responsible for remedying its own legal errors.
Donald Trump’s executive order—Modifying Reciprocal Tariff Rates to Reflect Trading Partner Retaliation and Alignment—represents a sharp escalation in his administration’s protectionist trade policy, particularly against the People’s Republic of China. This order invokes emergency authorities under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the National Emergencies Act to justify sweeping changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), including a dramatic tariff increase on Chinese imports from 84% to 125%. The administration justifies this move as a response to retaliatory tariffs imposed by China following prior executive actions. However, the continued use of emergency powers to address trade deficits—traditionally economic and not national security concerns—raises significant constitutional and legal red flags. This pattern of framing long-term economic imbalances as national emergencies not only stretches the intended scope of these statutes but also consolidates alarming discretionary power in the executive branch, sidelining Congress.
Economically, the order is both aggressive and volatile. Tariffs of this magnitude will likely provoke further retaliation, disrupt global supply chains, and impose significant costs on American consumers and businesses, particularly in sectors dependent on Chinese components and low-cost goods. The inclusion of increased duties on low-value postal items appears designed to target e-commerce imports from companies like Shein and Temu, but in practice, it will increase prices on every day goods for American households, especially those with limited discretionary income. Meanwhile, the temporary suspension of country-specific tariffs for over 75 countries that have “aligned” with the United States suggests a carrot-and-stick approach that prioritizes political allegiance over consistent trade policy. While the administration touts these suspensions as rewards for cooperation, the 90-day window for the exemptions creates market uncertainty and incentivizes short-term diplomatic posturing rather than sustainable trade agreements.
Diplomatically, the order reflects a hard pivot away from multilateralism and toward transactional bilateralism. Countries are clearly being sorted into categories based on their willingness to support U.S. economic and national security narratives, regardless of their adherence to international trade norms. This undermines the credibility of U.S. trade policy, potentially alienating allies and inviting the formation of competing trade blocs, such as those centered around China or the BRICS nations. Even countries currently spared from the highest tariffs may find this approach unstable and overly dependent on the whims of the White House, reducing long-term confidence in American partnership.
Rhetorically, the executive order continues Trump’s consistent strategy of depicting trade deficits and foreign industrial competition—especially from China—as existential threats to U.S. sovereignty and security. This narrative, while politically resonant with economic nationalists and working-class voters, contradicts widely accepted economic theory, which sees trade deficits as reflections of macroeconomic trends like investment flows and consumption rather than as indicators of unfair practices. Furthermore, the order reinforces a binary worldview in which foreign nations are either adversaries or compliant partners, leaving little room for nuance or cooperation on shared global challenges.
This executive order is a politically calculated move that prioritizes short-term nationalist optics over sound economic strategy, legal restraint, or long-term diplomatic stability. While it may appeal to Trump’s base as a show of strength against China and a defense of American industry, its legal overreach, economic risks, and potential diplomatic fallout suggest a policy built more on political theater than sustainable governance.
By mid-morning, The White House had confirmed that the total base tariff on China is 145%, surpassing the previously reported figure of 125%.
Additional Source: Yahoo Finance
State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce held a press briefing marked by a disorganized, performative style that consistently undermined the seriousness of the issues discussed. From the outset, Bruce adopted an overly casual tone, opening with jokes about the weather and frequently injecting self-deprecating remarks about her own verbosity. While an approachable tone can humanize public officials, her delivery often felt more akin to a talk show monologue than a diplomatic briefing. She meandered through topics, relied heavily on filler language, and repeatedly inserted political talking points that prioritized promoting President Trump over conveying clear policy positions.
Substantively, the briefing lacked clarity and coherence. Bruce announced the release of American detainee Cassinia Karolina in a prisoner swap with Russia but provided scant detail about the terms of the exchange or the security implications of returning Arthur Petrov—a Russian national implicated in violations of export control laws—back to Russia. Instead of elaborating on the broader strategy or precedent this might set, she pivoted to praising Trump as a bold leader, framing the action as a fulfillment of his campaign promises. This kind of politicized framing persisted throughout the briefing. Whether addressing China’s retaliatory tariffs or Iran’s nuclear posture, Bruce offered broad ideological condemnations instead of specific diplomatic or economic policy steps.
Her responses to questions about Middle East policy, particularly regarding Gaza, Israel, and potential peace initiatives, were heavy on emotional appeals and light on facts. She invoked themes of human suffering and villainized Hamas with sweeping rhetoric but failed to articulate how the U.S. is balancing humanitarian concerns with its support for Israel or how diplomacy is being advanced. Repeatedly, she refused to address direct questions—such as whether the U.S. is pressuring Israel to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza—by deflecting to vague affirmations of ongoing work and expressions of moral concern. When asked about upcoming Iran talks, she avoided all specifics, stating only that it would be a “meeting” and refusing to discuss its format, aims, or potential outcomes.
Even on issues that should have warranted straightforward answers—like Ambassador Bridget Brink's resignation or allegations of Israeli plans to occupy Gaza—Bruce obfuscated or dodged, relying on canned language about not speculating or discussing personnel matters. This lack of transparency was particularly troubling when paired with Bruce’s frequent appeals to emotion and sweeping moral generalizations, which often substituted for evidence or accountability.
The briefing offered more spectacle than substance. Bruce appeared more interested in reinforcing the administration’s political branding than in providing the public with meaningful updates on American diplomacy. Her rhetoric was frequently adversarial, often improvisational, and consistently grounded in ideological narratives rather than policy detail. The result was a State Department briefing that resembled campaign theater more than a serious exercise in international communication.
A federal judge, Trevor Neil McFadden, has ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s plan to enforce a longstanding but rarely implemented requirement that all non-citizens in the U.S.—including undocumented immigrants—register with the federal government. The policy, which takes effect Friday, mandates that individuals aged 14 and older without legal status must register, provide fingerprints and addresses, and carry documentation or face fines or prison. Parents must register their undocumented children under 14.
This enforcement revives provisions from laws dating back to the 1940s and 1950s but has not been widely used since World War II, except briefly after 9/11 under the NSEERS program, which disproportionately targeted Arab and Muslim men and was later dismantled.
The Department of Homeland Security says it is enforcing an already existing law. Critics argue it’s a backdoor method for mass deportations and that the administration should have gone through formal rulemaking. Plaintiffs claim it places undocumented individuals in a dilemma: comply and risk exposure or hide and face criminal charges.
A federal judge has allowed a defamation lawsuit to proceed against President Donald Trump over false claims he made during a 2024 presidential debate about the Central Park Five—five Black and Hispanic men wrongfully convicted of a 1989 rape. Judge Wendy Beetlestone ruled that Trump’s statements, which included the claim that the men “pled guilty” and “killed a person,” can be “objectively determined” as false. However, she dismissed a separate claim alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The Central Park Five—Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, and Korey Wise—were exonerated in 2002 after the real perpetrator confessed and DNA evidence confirmed his guilt. During the debate, Trump defended his historical stance, including his 1989 newspaper ads calling for the death penalty.
Trump’s legal team argued his comments were constitutionally protected opinions without defamatory impact. While his attorney called the partial dismissal a victory, the plaintiffs and their lawyer, Shanin Specter, expressed confidence in proceeding to trial.
The suit seeks unspecified damages. The men previously received $41 million from New York City for their wrongful convictions.
The Trump administration has frozen over $1 billion in federal funding for Cornell University and $790 million for Northwestern University, citing ongoing investigations into alleged civil rights violations. The freeze primarily affects grants and contracts from departments like Health, Education, Agriculture, and Defense.
This move is part of a broader crackdown on universities over issues, including pro-Palestinian campus protests, D E I (diversity, equity, inclusion) programs, and transgender policies. The administration has accused some universities of failing to prevent antisemitism, particularly in relation to protests against Israel’s military actions in Gaza following the Hamas attack in October 2023.
Cornell and Northwestern stated they have not received formal notice of the funding freeze but acknowledged receiving partial or informal communications, such as stop-work orders. Northwestern emphasized the potential risk to important research efforts.
This action follows similar measures against Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania, with Columbia losing $400 million in funding and later agreeing to policy changes. Federal agents have also detained and initiated deportation proceedings against some foreign student protesters and revoked visas.
Critics, including human rights groups, have raised alarms over threats to free speech, academic freedom, and increased Islamophobia and anti-Arab bias. The administration has not addressed those concerns.
Wonder what’s next?