What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
May 27, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump’s barrage of Truth Social posts spans domestic policy, cultural grievance, foreign affairs, and economic posturing—yet they consistently demonstrate a reliance on emotional appeals, factual distortions, and authoritarian rhetoric, rather than grounded policymaking. Beginning with his denunciation of transgender athletes in California, Trump alleges that Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration “illegally” allows “men to play in women’s sports.” This claim is not backed by any reference to California law, federal statute, or constitutional doctrine. Instead, it is based on inflammatory language that misgenders transgender individuals and stokes outrage by asserting that a transgender athlete is “practically unbeatable.” By highlighting this single example as emblematic of a systemic failure, Trump crafts a misleading narrative to support his threat of withholding federal funds—a threat that lacks legal merit and would likely face immediate constitutional challenge under the anti-commandeering doctrine and civil rights statutes. His claim that he will “order local authorities” to prevent the athlete’s participation in the State Finals amounts to an extralegal power grab, with no lawful basis for federal interference in a state-organized high school sports event. This post is not a policy announcement; it is culture war theater, designed to provoke and divide.
In the next post, Trump turns to his imposition of a 50% tariff on the European Union, characterizing it as a corrective action against European nations’ “slow walking” trade negotiations. While he implies this was a savvy and strategic move, he again fails to explain the legal or economic framework supporting such a dramatic tariff. There is no acknowledgment of the potential retaliatory measures, harm to American exporters, or disruption to international supply chains that such a policy might cause. Nor does he explain what concessions, if any, were extracted from the EU as a result of the tariff threat. Instead, he asserts his authority to “set a deal” for trade, a phrase that reveals his continuing misunderstanding-or deliberate misrepresentation-of the U.S. constitutional structure, where Congress holds the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. The post ends with a bizarre flourish in which Trump assures both China and the EU that they will be “very happy” if they meet his demands, reducing complex multilateral trade relations to the level of a real estate deal.
Trump’s commentary on Vladimir Putin is even more opaque. He vaguely asserts that “really bad things” would have happened to Russia but for his efforts, without detailing what actions he took, what threats he allegedly averted, or how this connects to ongoing Russian aggression in Ukraine. The claim that Putin is “playing with fire” is delivered without context, strategy, or diplomatic coherence. This type of post exemplifies Trump’s habitual insertion of himself into global crises as a singular, heroic figure, even when his own administration’s foreign policy record offers little evidence of concrete, lasting deterrents to Russian militarism.
Turning to domestic commemorations, Trump’s post celebrating the 101st anniversary of the U.S. Border Patrol is less about the agency itself and more about attacking Democrats. He asserts that President Biden and congressional Democrats “refused” to recognize the agency—an unverifiable and likely false claim that repositions a nonpartisan institution as a pawn in partisan warfare. In reality, presidential proclamations and recognitions vary year to year. Trump’s framing of this as a deliberate snub is part of a broader pattern of manufacturing outrage and claiming exclusive ownership of patriotism.
Perhaps the most outlandish post in the series is Trump’s supposed offer to Canada to become the 51st state in exchange for free participation in the “Golden Dome System,” a term that appears to be a fictional stand-in for missile defense. The statement is diplomatically insulting, treating Canadian sovereignty as a negotiable asset and conflating alliance participation with forced political integration. If meant as satire, the post is irresponsibly flippant. If meant seriously, it is a gross misreading of international relations and North American diplomacy, suggesting that statehood is a cost-saving measure rather than a sovereign right.
In his lengthy reflection on fishing rights in Maine, Trump crafts a narrative in which environmental protections are depicted as an act of political vengeance by the Obama and Biden administrations. He accuses them of turning rich fishing waters into “restricted environmental monuments” as punishment and alleges, with no evidence, that this was done to harm Maine’s fishing industry and benefit Canada. This misrepresents marine conservation policies—often based on ecological research and bipartisan agreement—as purely partisan retribution. The post is littered with performative asides—praising “lumberjacks,” boasting of electoral wins, and attacking Biden’s use of the “autopen,” which together create a scattered and conspiratorial account that blurs fact, fantasy, and political narrative.
On the subject of Alaska, Trump again takes credit for vague “JOB producing product” without naming any specific policies or projects. He implies that Alaska’s future prosperity depends solely on his leadership and the loyalty of its local political class. There is no reference to the complexities of Alaskan resource management, infrastructure needs, or environmental policy. The emphasis is on his personal legacy and conditional support, echoing his frequent suggestion that prosperity is only possible through total political allegiance.
The post about the “AUTOPEN” veers into conspiracy territory. Trump asserts that this mechanical signature device, which presidents of both parties have used, is the second “Biggest Scandal in American History,” eclipsed only by the 2020 election. He then claims that it was used to enact extreme policies Biden would never support, “of sound mind,” implying that unknown figures hijacked the presidency. This combines his repeated attacks on Biden’s mental fitness with a bizarre procedural claim that ignores the reality that autopen use is legally sanctioned for routine administrative purposes.
Finally, his post about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stands out as relatively sober. Trump expresses support for taking the mortgage agencies public while maintaining implicit federal guarantees—a position that aligns with past conservative proposals. However, even here, the message lacks depth, as there is no discussion of housing market volatility, taxpayer exposure, or the lessons of the 2008 financial crisis. He praises the agencies for helping Americans achieve home ownership, but uses capitalized slogans and vague reassurances rather than offering a detailed vision of reform or safeguards.
These posts demonstrate Trump’s ongoing use of social media as a campaign tool rather than a platform for coherent governance. He routinely trades in spectacle over substance, grievance over governance, and absolutism over nuance. His use of executive authority is consistently exaggerated, legal constraints are ignored, and fact-checking is abandoned in favor of emotional resonance with his base. Whether discussing international relations, domestic policy, or culture war flashpoints, his posts reveal a pattern of manipulation, disinformation, and personal glorification that undermines democratic norms and trivializes complex policy issues.
The Trump administration’s renewed effort to defund Harvard University, by initiating a sweeping federal review of its contracts and grants, appears less like a principled audit of fiscal responsibility and more like an overtly political retaliation, masked in bureaucratic procedure. By framing the move as a response to alleged “discrimination and antisemitism” at Harvard, the administration invokes a moral rationale but fails to provide specific, substantiated findings to support such a serious charge. Instead, this resembles a pattern of grievance politics aimed at prestigious academic institutions perceived as ideologically hostile to the administration.
The broader implications are deeply concerning. Federal research grants are not arbitrary gifts to elite schools—they fund high-priority research designated by the government itself. Projects tackling cancer, heart disease, aging, and neurological disorders serve national interests far beyond Harvard’s campus. Cutting this funding midstream not only threatens scientific progress but also wastes previous investments. This is particularly evident in the example of Harvard’s Sinclair Lab, which lost key NIH grants and international researchers due to earlier punitive measures. Halting complex biomedical experiments mid-course irreparably disrupts work that often cannot simply resume with new funding later.
The collateral damage extends to thousands of graduate students, postdoctoral researchers, and international scholars whose livelihoods and visas are tied to federally funded projects. The administration’s move to revoke Harvard’s ability to host foreign students and researchers underscores how the policy targets people rather than practices, treating human capital as political leverage.
While the administration claims it will only terminate “non-critical” contracts, the determination of what is “critical” is left to the same agencies now being pressured to align with the White House’s political agenda. This raises clear concerns about the objectivity and integrity of the review process. The administration also says hospitals affiliated with Harvard won’t be affected, but the interconnected nature of academic medicine, research, and clinical care makes this distinction blurry at best.
This campaign is not a coherent reform of federal funding practices, but a strategic attack on higher education institutions that challenge the administration’s worldview. It weaponizes federal contracting authority to chill dissent and punish perceived ideological enemies—an authoritarian impulse in the guise of administrative oversight. The long-term costs may include not only the degradation of scientific research but also a chilling effect on academic freedom and international collaboration.
The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to overturn a federal injunction that requires giving immigrants facing deportation to third countries (not their countries of origin) a meaningful opportunity to raise concerns about possible torture, persecution, or death. The injunction, issued by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, mandates at least 10 days' notice before such deportations. The administration argues that these procedures are burdensome, unauthorized, and interfere with foreign policy and national security. The case focuses on immigrants who have already been ordered deported but who cannot be returned to their home countries. The plaintiffs’ attorneys argue the injunction simply ensures basic due process. Murphy recently criticized the administration for violating his order by flying eight men to South Sudan and rejected its request to reconsider the procedural requirements, emphasizing the importance of reason over rhetoric.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy sharply criticized the Trump administration for misrepresenting his court order and launching personal attacks against him in a dispute over illegal third-country deportations. Murphy had previously barred the administration from deporting undocumented immigrants to nations they have no ties to—such as South Sudan—without giving them notice or a chance to object based on fear of persecution or torture.
Last week, the administration violated that order by attempting to deport several men to South Sudan without due process. Instead of demanding their return to the U.S., Murphy allowed the men to be held at a U.S. military base in Djibouti and ordered that they be given the opportunity to contest the deportation.
In response, President Trump and senior aide Stephen Miller publicly attacked the judge, with Miller calling him a “lunatic” and Trump declaring that judges were “out of control.” Murphy rebuked the administration’s complaints, pointing out that the use of the Djibouti base was their own proposal. He emphasized that returning to the prior status quo was always an available option and mocked the government’s logistical failures. Murphy also urged the administration to moderate its rhetoric and prioritize reason over political theatrics.
National Public Radio and several Colorado-based public radio stations have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to block an executive order that aims to restrict or eliminate federal funding to public broadcasters like NPR and PBS. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., argues that President Trump’s actions are retaliatory and violate the First Amendment, citing his public accusations that public broadcasting is biased against him.
The executive order in question, signed on May 1, 2025, directs federal agencies to halt funding to public broadcasters and restricts stations from using federal funds to purchase content from NPR or PBS. The order claims that public broadcasting is no longer necessary in a diverse media landscape and accuses NPR and PBS of political bias, which allegedly breaches the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's (CPB) statutory requirement for neutrality.
The plaintiffs—NPR, Colorado Public Radio, Roaring Fork Public Radio, and KSUT Public Radio—contend that the order bypasses congressional authority over appropriations and infringes on press freedom. They argue that Congress explicitly designed CPB to be independent from political interference, as reinforced by the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.
The stations say the move is not just politically motivated but unconstitutional, representing a “textbook” case of government retaliation against perceived critical news coverage. They stress the importance of defending independent journalism and assert that even modest federal funding is crucial for many rural stations.
The Trump administration’s decision to temporarily halt new student visa appointments under the pretext of expanding social media vetting represents a significant escalation in its broader campaign to restrict international academic exchange. This move injects uncertainty into the U.S. higher education system, disrupting university admissions and enrollment cycles at a time when international students contribute not only to the economy but also to the academic vibrancy of American institutions. The pause, implemented without a clear timeline or transparent criteria, undermines the United States' global competitiveness and signals an increasingly inhospitable environment for foreign scholars.
The proposed expansion of social media screening raises serious civil liberties concerns. It is vague, intrusive, and ripe for abuse. Without clear standards or judicial oversight, the government risks disqualifying applicants based on lawful speech, political affiliations, or perceived ideological threats. This kind of blanket surveillance could disproportionately impact Muslim applicants or those who engage in pro-Palestinian activism, mirroring discriminatory patterns from earlier in the administration. The lack of transparency surrounding what constitutes disqualifying content fosters an atmosphere of arbitrariness and ideological policing.
More troubling is the evident politicization of visa policy. The administration’s decision to bar Harvard from enrolling international students, citing alleged antisemitism and ties to the Chinese Communist Party, appears less about national security and more about retaliating against dissenting academic institutions. Similar efforts to deport students involved in pro-Palestinian activism, including green card holders, further highlight this pattern. These actions suggest the misuse of immigration law as a tool to suppress political opposition, bypassing due process and constitutional safeguards.
Legal challenges are already mounting, with courts blocking several of these efforts on the grounds of due process violations and First Amendment infringement. Attempts to revoke visas based on political views or social media activity are constitutionally fraught and threaten to set dangerous precedents. While national security vetting is appropriate, this administration’s approach appears more ideologically driven than evidence-based. In prioritizing loyalty tests over academic freedom and civil rights, the administration is not just undermining its stated goals—it is eroding the legal and ethical foundations of U.S. immigration and higher education policy.
Donald Trump announced his intent to pardon reality television stars Todd and Julie Chrisley, known for their show Chrisley Knows Best, following their convictions for financial crimes. In 2022, the Chrisleys were found guilty of conspiring to defraud banks in the Atlanta area out of over $30 million by submitting falsified documents to obtain loans. Prosecutors also proved that the couple engaged in tax evasion, concealing earnings while flaunting a lavish lifestyle that included luxury vehicles, high-end real estate, and expensive travel. Todd Chrisley was sentenced to 12 years in prison, and Julie was sentenced to 7 years, and they were jointly ordered to pay $17.8 million in restitution. Todd had previously declared bankruptcy, walking away from more than $20 million in unpaid loans.
Trump revealed his pardon plan during a phone call with the couple’s daughter, Savannah Chrisley, telling her, “Your parents are going to be free and clean, and I hope that we can do it by tomorrow.” A White House aide posted the video online, captioning it “Trump Knows Best!”—a play on the title of the Chrisleys’ show. Trump defended the move by describing the couple’s treatment as excessively harsh. A White House official, speaking anonymously, confirmed that the pardons were imminent.
The Chrisleys’ attorney, Alex Little, praised Trump’s decision, framing the pardon as a remedy for what he called “a deep injustice.” He asserted that the prosecution was politically motivated and constitutionally flawed, claiming Todd and Julie were targeted for their conservative values and public profile. Little emphasized that the case exemplified why the presidential pardon power exists.
The Chrisleys’ fraud involved a scheme in which they and a business partner repeatedly used fraudulent loan applications to secure funds, then cycled new loans to pay off old debts. Their extravagant spending and avoidance of financial accountability became central themes during their trial. Although the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the convictions in 2023, it ordered Julie Chrisley’s case back to the lower court for resentencing, citing a legal error in the original sentencing.
This latest pardon fits a broader pattern in Trump’s second term of granting clemency to political allies and figures involved in high-profile conservative causes. Just one day prior, Trump pardoned former Virginia sheriff Scott Jenkins, convicted of fraud and bribery, claiming the Biden Justice Department had persecuted him. Trump has also pardoned Paul Walczak, a health care executive imprisoned on tax charges whose mother leaked contents of Ashley Biden’s diary, and Michele Fiore, a Nevada Republican awaiting sentencing for misusing public funds for personal expenses, including cosmetic surgery.
Savannah Chrisley has been an outspoken defender of her parents and a vocal Trump supporter. At the 2024 Republican National Convention, she claimed her parents were targeted by politically motivated prosecutors in a heavily Democratic county before an Obama-appointed judge. She recounted how a prosecutor referred to her family as “the Trumps of the South,” which she embraced as a compliment. Her comments echoed Trump’s broader narrative of a weaponized justice system used against conservatives.
The decision to pardon the Chrisleys signals not just Trump’s continued use of executive clemency to benefit allies but also the deep politicization of legal accountability in his administration’s second term, particularly for those with media visibility and ties to Trump’s political base.
A federal judge struck down President Trump’s executive order targeting the law firm WilmerHale, marking the third time courts have ruled such orders unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, declared that Trump's attempt to penalize the firm over its past employment of Robert Mueller violated foundational principles of judicial independence and the legal profession. The order had sought to revoke WilmerHale’s government contracts, building access, and security clearances.
In a 73-page opinion, Leon emphasized that a judiciary and legal community free to take on controversial cases is essential to American democracy. He permanently blocked enforcement of the order, calling it a direct threat to constitutional rights.
WilmerHale is one of six law firms Trump named in various executive orders, and the third to successfully challenge them in court. Previous rulings also struck down orders against Jenner & Block and Perkins Coie. Another firm, Susman Godfrey, has a pending lawsuit. Meanwhile, some firms either accepted penalties quietly or negotiated with Trump to avoid executive action, often by pledging pro bono work or ending diversity and inclusion programs. These deals reportedly netted the administration nearly $1 billion in legal services.
A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from penalizing New York over its congestion pricing program, which charges vehicles entering Manhattan below 60th Street during peak hours. The judge, Lewis Liman, issued a restraining order barring the Department of Transportation from withholding federal funds or approvals until June 9, in response to a lawsuit by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). The Trump administration had withdrawn federal approval for the program in February, arguing it exceeded congressional authority. In turn, the MTA sued, asserting the withdrawal was unjustified. Governor Kathy Hochul hailed the ruling as a victory for New York's autonomy in managing traffic and funding public transit. The toll program began in January, has already raised nearly $50 million, and is projected to earn $500 million this year.