What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
February 11, 2025 Recap
President Trump issued an executive order that represents a significant departure from long-standing anti-corruption efforts, effectively weakening enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) under the justification of economic competitiveness and national security. While the order frames the FCPA as an overreaching regulatory burden that hinders U.S. businesses abroad, this move raises critical concerns about the ethical and legal consequences of pausing enforcement.
By halting new investigations and reviewing existing enforcement actions, the administration is signaling a tolerance for corporate misconduct, potentially encouraging illicit activities that damage international trust in U.S. businesses. The FCPA was designed to prevent bribery and unethical business practices in foreign dealings, and this decision undermines those safeguards. Furthermore, the order conflates economic competitiveness with national security, implying that corruption should be overlooked if it benefits U.S. strategic interests. This argument is problematic because it disregards the long-term reputational harm corruption inflicts on American businesses and global financial systems.
The executive order also weakens accountability by consolidating decision-making power within the Attorney General’s office, allowing for discretionary extensions and case-by-case exemptions. The lack of clear criteria for what constitutes an "exception" to the pause raises concerns about selective enforcement, opening the door to potential political and corporate favoritism. Additionally, many countries have adopted stringent anti-bribery regulations modeled after the FCPA, and a pause in enforcement risks alienating international allies and trade partners who expect ethical business practices. Foreign competitors could exploit the U.S.'s weakened stance to gain unfair advantages in global markets, ultimately undermining the administration's stated goal of enhancing economic competitiveness.
Moreover, this policy contradicts broader U.S. commitments to global anti-corruption initiatives, including those established through the OECD and the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. The U.S. has long positioned itself as a leader in promoting transparency and ethical business conduct, and this executive order jeopardizes that credibility. While reducing regulatory overreach can be a valid policy goal, an outright pause on FCPA enforcement risks emboldening unethical business practices, weakening international trust in U.S. leadership, and creating opportunities for corruption that may ultimately harm national security rather than protect it.
President Trump’s meeting with King Abdullah II of Jordan in the Oval Office was intended to reinforce U.S.-Jordan relations and discuss critical issues in the Middle East. However, the discussion exposed significant shortcomings in Trump’s approach to regional diplomacy, which is marked by vague assurances, contradictions, and a lack of substantive policy direction. Rather than providing a clear framework for addressing pressing concerns such as Israeli-Palestinian tensions and regional stability, Trump leaned on rhetoric and self-praise, failing to engage with the complexities of the issues at hand.
One of the most striking weaknesses in Trump’s remarks was his lack of a concrete policy on Middle East peace. While he emphasized the strength of U.S.-Jordan relations and his purportedly close ties with Jordan, he failed to articulate a meaningful strategy for addressing ongoing conflicts. When asked about the possibility of Israel annexing the West Bank, his response was dismissive and noncommittal, stating that it would “work out very well” without offering any substantive assurances to King Abdullah. This evasive approach suggests a troubling indifference to the long-standing concerns of Jordan and the broader Arab world regarding Palestinian rights and regional stability.
Trump’s handling of the Palestinian issue further revealed a superficial understanding of the conflict. Rather than acknowledging the political and humanitarian dimensions of Palestinian aspirations, he reduced the problem to economic development, presenting a highly simplistic vision of turning Gaza into a "diamond" for the Middle East. While economic investment is undoubtedly important, his comments ignored the fundamental issues of Palestinian sovereignty, displacement, and self-determination. His assumption that people in Gaza would be "very happy" with redevelopment demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of the Palestinian experience and a failure to recognize the long-standing grievances that drive the conflict.
Additionally, Trump’s contradictory statements on Gaza’s future further raised concerns. Initially, he suggested that the U.S. would "buy Gaza," only to later assert that “we’re going to take it, we’re going to hold it, we’re going to cherish it.” These remarks are not only diplomatically reckless but also dangerously neocolonial in tone, raising the question of whether Trump envisions direct U.S. involvement in the governance or control of Gaza. His lack of clarity on this issue reflects either a disregard for the legal and political complexities involved or a willingness to make inflammatory statements without concern for their implications.
Rather than accepting any U.S. responsibility for regional instability, Trump deflected blame onto the Biden administration, repeatedly stating that the October 7th attacks and broader Middle East crises would not have occurred under his presidency. While it is common for political figures to critique their successors, his insistence that all current global conflicts—from Gaza to Ukraine—would not have happened under his leadership is purely speculative and lacks credibility. Furthermore, his failure to acknowledge the role his own administration played in shaping regional dynamics—mainly through policies like the Abraham Accords, which sidelined Palestinian concerns—reveals a selective and self-serving narrative.
Trump also attempted to paint himself as a strong ally of Arab communities, particularly by claiming overwhelming support among Arab-American voters in Michigan. However, this assertion contradicts broader Arab-American discontent with his policies, particularly his travel bans on predominantly Muslim countries and his administration’s handling of Palestinian issues. His characterization of the Middle East as being universally in favor of peace is simplistic and misleading, ignoring the deep political divisions and varied national interests at play.
Ultimately, Trump’s meeting with King Abdullah was more about grandstanding than substantive diplomacy. Rather than offering clear, actionable solutions, Trump relied on vague optimism, contradictory statements, and deflections of responsibility. While King Abdullah attempted to focus on practical cooperation, Trump’s remarks failed to address key concerns about Palestinian sovereignty, Israeli expansionism, and regional stability. The meeting underscored the gaps in Trump’s foreign policy approach, highlighting his tendency to prioritize self-promotion over meaningful engagement with complex geopolitical realities.
President Trump signed an executive order to end the procurement and so-called “forced use” of paper straws. However, its justification relies more on ideological rhetoric than substantive policy reasoning. The claim that Americans have been “forced” to use paper straws is exaggerated, as no federal mandate required their use. While some local governments have restricted plastic straws, this is not a widespread national issue, making the necessity of an executive order questionable.
The document selectively cites environmental arguments against paper straws, pointing to their carbon footprint and potential PFAS contamination while entirely ignoring the well-documented environmental harms of plastic pollution. While concerns about PFAS merit further study, the fact sheet presents plastic straws as a superior alternative without acknowledging their role in long-term ecological damage, such as microplastic contamination and marine pollution. This one-sided framing undermines the credibility of the argument and suggests a politically motivated rather than scientifically driven policy decision.
His remarks, made during the order’s signing ceremony in the Oval Office, focused heavily on the inconvenience of paper straws and anecdotal dissatisfaction and failed to address the broader ecological concerns surrounding plastic waste. The assertion that the environmental impact of plastic versus paper straws is “entirely unclear” contradicts extensive research indicating that plastic pollution significantly harms marine life and ecosystems. Furthermore, framing the issue as a financial burden on the government and private industry overlooks the broader context of sustainability efforts and long-term cost considerations. His characterization of paper straws as unreliable, even “exploding” under certain conditions, adds a dramatic and dismissive tone that undermines a serious discussion about environmental policy. Lastly, his offhand remark that plastic “isn’t going to affect a shark very much” trivializes the well-documented dangers of plastic waste in the ocean, making the order seem more like a reactionary move against a cultural trend rather than a well-reasoned policy initiative.
President Trump signed an executive order to downsize the federal workforce and compel agencies to comply with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). With significant influence from Elon Musk, this order raises profound concerns about governance, transparency, and the erosion of institutional stability. While Musk frames the initiative as an effort to streamline an inefficient bureaucracy, critics rightfully highlight the potential consequences of such an aggressive restructuring. The mandate to hire only one employee for every four departures and proposed large-scale reductions risk undermining essential government functions and public services. This approach reflects a broader ideological push to weaken federal institutions rather than reform them sustainably or strategically.
Musk’s role as an unelected yet extraordinarily powerful figure in this process is particularly troubling. His direct influence over federal agencies, combined with his control of a major social media platform, raises serious ethical and democratic concerns. While he jokes about scrutiny feeling like a "daily proctology exam," the reality is that his involvement lacks the accountability expected of public officials. His comments dismissing the federal workforce as an "unelected fourth branch" ignore the critical role of career public servants in maintaining government continuity and expertise. The fact that workers are reportedly fearful of surveillance and job loss further underscores the authoritarian undertones of this initiative.
Federal employees and their advocates' reactions demonstrate the human cost of this downsizing effort. Workers describe an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty, and demoralization, contradicting the administration’s portrayal of this effort as a necessary reform. The deferred resignation program, in particular, raises ethical and legal red flags. By incentivizing workers to leave their positions under potentially misleading assurances of continued pay, the program risks coercing public servants into forfeiting their rights while disrupting the very agencies they serve.
A senior FEMA official, Stacey Street, ordered a freeze on funding for multiple grant programs, including those for emergency preparedness, homeland security, and church protection, just hours after a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration must stop such pauses. This move was seen as a violation of the court order, putting federal employees in a difficult position between obeying executive orders and adhering to judicial rulings.
The decision came amid broader tensions over Trump's executive authority. Four FEMA officials were fired the following day, with DHS officials citing unauthorized spending on migrant housing in New York as the reason. Trump adviser Elon Musk also criticized FEMA, claiming it had illegally spent $59 million on hotels for migrants.
Trump further escalated the controversy by calling for FEMA's termination, arguing that states should manage disaster relief independently. The White House defended the administration's actions, asserting that court injunctions against Trump’s orders were politically motivated and that the president would ultimately be vindicated.
A federal judge, John Bates, issued a temporary restraining order on Tuesday directing the Trump administration to restore public health webpages and datasets recently removed by federal health agencies. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by a doctors’ group that argued that removing the information obstructs their ability to care for patients effectively.
In his 21-page opinion, Judge Bates emphasized that ordinary Americans, especially underprivileged individuals seeking healthcare, were the primary victims of the administration’s actions. The ruling underscores concerns that limiting access to public health data could have significant consequences for medical professionals and the communities they serve.
The legal challenge reflects broader tensions between the administration and healthcare professionals over transparency and access to critical health information. The court’s intervention ensures that the removed datasets and webpages must be restored temporarily while the case proceeds.
More than two dozen religious organizations have filed a lawsuit against the federal government, challenging the Trump administration’s policy that grants immigration agents greater authority to make arrests at "sensitive locations," including houses of worship. The groups, which include the Mennonite Church, the Episcopal Church, the Union for Reform Judaism, and the Unitarian Universalist Association, argue that this policy infringes on their religious freedom, citing reduced attendance at congregations due to fear and an imminent risk of enforcement actions. The lawsuit emphasizes that welcoming immigrants is a core tenet of their faith, asserting that all individuals deserve dignity and compassion. Religious leaders, including Presiding Bishop Sean Rowe of the Episcopal Church and Rev. Laura Everett of the Massachusetts Council of Churches, have spoken out against the policy, emphasizing that houses of worship have historically been places of safety and sanctuary. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction to prohibit immigration enforcement at religious sites unless agents obtain a judicial warrant or face urgent circumstances. This is the second lawsuit from religious organizations opposing the policy, following a similar suit by Quaker groups in Maryland. The administration has not yet issued a response to the lawsuit.
Fogel, who had been teaching in Russia, was arrested by authorities at Sheremetyevo International Airport near Moscow and later sentenced to 14 years in prison for possessing approximately 17 grams of medical cannabis.
Although he had been legally prescribed cannabis in the United States for back pain, the substance remains illegal in Russia.
This exchange is seen as a sign of good faith from Russia and progress toward ending the war in Ukraine. However, the statement lacks details about the terms of the exchange, leaving ambiguity about what concessions, if any, were made to Russia. While it suggests that this development is a step toward ending the war in Ukraine, it provides no evidence of a broader diplomatic strategy or concrete steps beyond this singular event.
Additionally, the claim that Trump has consistently secured the release of detained Americans may be an overgeneralization, as such efforts often involve complex, multilateral negotiations extending beyond any single administration. Fogel is expected to be reunited with his family in the U.S. tonight.
President Trump announced the appointments to the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB) as a distinguished and patriotic group dedicated to advancing his "America First" agenda. However, the statement raises several critical concerns.
First, the appointments' framing as a means to "restore integrity" to the Intelligence Community implies a preexisting lack of trust or credibility, which could be seen as an attempt to politicize intelligence oversight. The announcement suggests prioritizing political loyalty over independent analysis by emphasizing alignment with the President’s agenda rather than nonpartisan expertise.
Second, several appointees, such as Devin Nunes and Reince Priebus, are known for their deep political affiliations rather than extensive intelligence experience. Nunes, for instance, has a history of controversial involvement in intelligence matters as a staunch Trump ally, raising concerns about impartiality. Similarly, Priebus, a former White House Chief of Staff and Republican National Committee chair, lacks a direct background in intelligence operations.
Finally, while the announcement highlights a "broad range of experience and intellect," it provides no substantive details on the specific qualifications of these individuals in intelligence and national security. The absence of transparency in selection criteria raises questions about whether this advisory board will serve as an objective body or a politically motivated extension of the administration’s interests.
President Trump’s proclamation on adjusting aluminum imports represents a significant escalation of protectionist trade policies under the guise of national security. While the document underscores concerns about global overcapacity and unfair trade practices, particularly from China and Mexico, it fails to address the broader economic ramifications of increased tariffs. The shift from a 10% to a 25% ad valorem tariff on aluminum imports from key trade partners, including Canada, Mexico, and the European Union, signals an aggressive departure from previously negotiated agreements, risking retaliatory tariffs and potential trade wars. The proclamation also eliminates exclusion processes that previously allowed certain aluminum products to enter the U.S. market without additional duties, further tightening import restrictions. By dismantling existing trade arrangements and increasing barriers, the administration risks inflating costs for U.S. manufacturers who rely on aluminum, ultimately undermining domestic industries rather than strengthening them. Moreover, the justification of “national security” remains tenuous, as many affected countries are close allies of the United States, and the supposed threat does not appear to be linked to military readiness or strategic vulnerability. Instead of fostering cooperative trade relationships, this move may provoke economic instability, diplomatic tensions, and inefficiencies within domestic supply chains. While the proclamation aims to protect American aluminum producers, it does so at the expense of broader economic interests, raising questions about its long-term effectiveness and strategic wisdom.