What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
Weekend Recap, March 29th & 30th, 2025
A federal judge has temporarily halted the Trump administration’s attempt to dismantle the U.S. Agency for Global Media and silence Voice of America (VOA), calling the move a “classic case of arbitrary and capricious decision making.” Judge James Paul Oetken issued a restraining order blocking the agency from firing or furloughing over 1,200 employees, closing offices, cutting off funding to affiliated services like Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia, or requiring overseas staff to return to the U.S. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by VOA journalists, unions, and media advocates who argued that the shutdown violated longstanding legal protections against political interference. The plaintiffs pointed to a prior court ruling affirming VOA’s editorial independence and warned that silencing U.S.-funded global broadcasters would leave an opening for authoritarian propaganda to dominate international media.
The Trump administration’s actions followed a March 14 executive order that slashed funding to the Agency for Global Media and six unrelated agencies, in line with the president’s effort to shrink government and align federal operations with his political agenda. Almost immediately, VOA went off the air, contractors were cut, and agency email systems were shut down. The White House labeled VOA “The Voice of Radical America,” accusing it of left-wing bias and promoting narratives—such as those involving white privilege or asylum-seeking transgender migrants—that it considered “anti-American.” Administration officials, including Kari Lake, a former TV anchor now serving as a special adviser, defended the move as necessary to realign U.S.-funded media with “American values.” In a recent interview, Lake dismissed the legal challenge as typical “lawfare,” insisting the administration would not fund outlets that “put out anti-American garbage.”
Judge Oetken sharply criticized this sweeping effort to gut an agency long authorized and funded by Congress, accusing the administration of acting with no regard for the consequences. His ruling prevents any immediate staffing or funding cuts while the legal battle continues. Additional lawsuits over the administration’s media crackdown are also underway in Washington, D.C. Voice of America, founded during World War II to counter Nazi propaganda, has played a key role in promoting press freedom in authoritarian regimes. The Trump administration’s attempt to silence it—under the guise of rooting out bias—represents not only a legal overreach but a direct assault on the journalistic independence that has defined the outlet for over 80 years.
Donald Trump announced that the prominent law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom has agreed to provide at least $100 million in pro bono legal services during his administration, along with making several internal policy changes aligned with the president’s agenda. Trump referred to the arrangement as “essentially a settlement,” which allows the firm to avoid being the sixth major law firm targeted by one of his executive orders. These orders have imposed punitive measures on legal organizations perceived to oppose his administration or support diversity and inclusion practices he has criticized.
The deal came shortly after Elon Musk, a key Trump advisor, tweeted disapproval of Skadden’s involvement in litigation against conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza, prompting speculation that public pressure influenced the firm’s decision. Earlier this week, Trump rescinded a similar executive order targeting the firm Paul, Weiss after it pledged $40 million in pro bono legal work for causes supported by the administration. Meanwhile, three other firms—WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie—have filed lawsuits challenging the legality of the executive orders imposed on them.
In a statement released by the White House, Skadden Executive Partner Jeremy London said the firm was pleased to have reached an agreement with the Trump administration and looked forward to a continued relationship. As part of the deal, Skadden also agreed to end DEI-based hiring practices, adopt a merit-based recruitment system, fund scholarships for legal projects that aid veterans, promote fairness in the justice system, and combat antisemitism. Additionally, the firm committed to not denying legal representation—especially in pro bono cases—to clients from politically marginalized groups based on the personal political beliefs of its attorneys.
This agreement, and others like it, raises significant concerns about executive overreach into the legal profession. The Trump administration’s use of executive orders and financial pressure to influence law firm operations and client representation threatens to erode the independence of the legal field. It may violate First Amendment protections by effectively punishing viewpoint diversity and compelling ideological alignment.
The Trump administration has effectively shut down the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP), a government-funded but Congressionally chartered think tank, in what is shaping up to be a significant constitutional confrontation over the limits of executive power. Led by the Elon Musk-headed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the takeover of USIP escalated earlier this month after a federal judge declined to block DOGE from assuming control. On a Friday evening, more than 200 U.S.-based USIP employees received abrupt termination notices via personal emails and WhatsApp messages. The notices were effective immediately and accompanied by severance offers contingent upon employees waiving their rights to legal action. Overseas staff were told to submit plans to relocate to a "safe" location by April 9 in anticipation of their own dismissals.
The shutdown follows Trump’s February order to dismantle USIP as part of a broader campaign to slash the federal government. In preparation for what leadership saw as a hostile effort, USIP staff fortified cybersecurity systems, restricted building access, and began backing up research and contacts. Despite those efforts, DOGE representatives gained physical access to the locked USIP headquarters using a key obtained from a former security contractor and with support from D.C. police. Cybersecurity defenses failed to prevent DOGE from seizing the think tank’s digital infrastructure, allegedly aided by a former USIP IT employee who was flown in to bypass protections. Phishing emails and compromised employee accounts soon followed, raising concerns that the entire operation was orchestrated to override internal resistance and expedite the institute’s collapse.
At the heart of the controversy is a fundamental legal question: can the President dismantle an organization created by Congress without new legislative action? USIP, though technically a private nonprofit, is funded by Congress, sits on federally authorized land, and was established by law in 1984 to support peacebuilding policy and research. The president is permitted to appoint and remove board members but only with board or Senate subcommittee approval. Seven former board members are now suing Trump appointees for what they call an unlawful and forceful takeover. Critics, including outside counsel George M. Foote, have denounced the firings as unconscionable and legally dubious.
This episode marks a dangerous expansion of executive authority and raises troubling questions about democratic checks and balances. The administration’s tactics—nighttime firings, forced entry, coercive severance, and cyber intrusion—are alarming and authoritarian in tone. Suppose the White House can shutter a Congressionally chartered institution like USIP without legislative consent. In that case, it opens the door to further dismantling civil society organizations funded by the federal government. What began as a bureaucratic dispute has now become a full-blown constitutional crisis that tests the boundaries of presidential power and the future of independent governance in the United States.
United Auto Workers (UAW) President Shawn Fain’s appearance on Face the Nation revealed a union leader trying to walk a tightrope between economic nationalism and defending basic labor rights, all while navigating the increasingly volatile political landscape. Fain’s core argument in favor of tariffs on automobiles and auto parts relied heavily on the familiar claim that these measures could reverse the damage done by NAFTA and other free trade agreements. However, while he positioned tariffs as a necessary “tool in the toolbox,” he did not present a clear or detailed strategy for how they would lead to sustainable, long-term job growth—especially in an auto industry increasingly defined by automation, globalization, and electric vehicle transition. His framing suggested that tariffs alone could force corporations to act in good faith, a notion that oversimplifies the structural power imbalance between multinational corporations and organized labor.
Fain also tried to distance the union from partisan loyalty, insisting that endorsements must be earned. Yet his comments betrayed a growing contradiction. On one hand, he acknowledged working with the Trump administration on trade and tariffs. On the other hand, he condemned Trump’s recent executive order, which eliminated collective bargaining for 700,000 federal workers—an extraordinary move that Fain correctly labeled as one of the most aggressive attacks on organized labor in modern history. Despite calling it “despicable,” Fain seemed hesitant to draw a firm political line. He warned of rising authoritarianism and violations of free speech among his union members but continued to speak as if a productive relationship with the same administration remained possible. The result was a muddled message: economic populism is welcome, but union-busting is not—even if both are pursued simultaneously by the same president.
His criticism of trade policy, including the USMCA deal negotiated under Trump, was more substantive. Fain noted the agreement’s failure to close outsourcing loopholes or prevent plant closures and rightly called for renegotiation. But again, he failed to clearly articulate how these renegotiations would succeed in an era when both major parties have used trade deals to serve corporate interests. He pointed to capacity at shuttered plants and workers eager to return but offered little in the way of a comprehensive industrial policy or coalition-building approach that could make such shifts politically viable.
On inflation, Fain forcefully rejected the idea that tariffs would harm consumers, instead accusing auto companies of price gouging. He’s right that corporations have used the post-pandemic period to inflate prices well beyond cost increases. Still, this rhetorical move sidestepped the legitimate concern that tariffs, without meaningful enforcement or price controls, could be passed on to consumers just the same. Fain’s refusal to engage with the economic downsides of protectionism made his position appear one-dimensional and reactive—strong on moral clarity, but weaker on economic complexity.
Perhaps most telling was his attempt to defend American manufacturing jobs while downplaying the exploitative conditions of global labor markets. He clarified that Mexican workers are not the enemy—a necessary point—but largely ignored how U.S. trade policy continues to fuel global labor exploitation. Instead of laying out a vision for international labor solidarity or binding global labor standards, Fain framed the issue almost entirely in terms of domestic job loss and wage suppression. In doing so, he missed an opportunity to articulate a progressive, transnational labor strategy that meets the moment.
In the end, Fain’s interview exposed the contradictions facing American labor in 2025: a desire to work with whoever is in power, even when that power is actively undermining workers; a faith in tariffs without a full plan for economic justice; and a continued struggle to define unionism in an era where both the left and right claim to champion “the working class” for their own ends. Fain is right to demand more for American workers—but unless the UAW draws a clearer line between genuine pro-labor policy and performative populism, it risks being used as a prop in a game it cannot win.
Protesters across the United States and parts of Europe demonstrated outside Tesla dealerships on Saturday in a coordinated effort to challenge Elon Musk’s growing role in the Trump administration. The protests targeted Musk’s leadership of the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), where he has been granted sweeping authority to access sensitive data and dismantle federal agencies as part of a broader plan to cut government spending. Critics view Musk’s involvement as emblematic of rising corporate authoritarianism under President Trump, and the “Tesla Takedown” movement aims to damage Musk financially by undermining Tesla’s brand and sales—the core of his estimated $340 billion fortune.
Saturday’s events marked the most organized protest to date, with attempts to surround all 277 Tesla showrooms and service centers in the U.S. Demonstrators gathered in states like New Jersey, Texas, California, and New York, holding signs that read “Honk if you hate Elon” and “Fight the billionaire broligarchy.” Chants of “Elon Musk has got to go” echoed outside showrooms in cities including Berkeley and Dublin, California. Smaller counterprotests by Trump supporters also appeared at some sites. The movement has garnered support from celebrities such as actor John Cusack and Democratic lawmakers like Reps. Jasmine Crockett and Pramila Jayapal who joined or endorsed protests and called for ongoing public resistance.
Although the demonstrations were largely peaceful, some incidents of vandalism and violence occurred. A fire in Germany destroyed seven Teslas, and in Massachusetts, a protester was struck by a truck’s side mirror, though not seriously injured. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi condemned certain acts as “domestic terrorism,” while Musk, in a recent company meeting, called the vandals “psycho” and urged restraint.
International protests, including a small demonstration in London, reflected similar anti-Musk sentiment, with signs comparing the billionaire to fascist leaders. Protesters expressed alarm at what they see as a dangerous erosion of democratic norms, with one participant warning that the U.S. is sliding into a “fascist state.” Some Tesla owners have begun selling their cars or placing anti-Musk bumper stickers on their vehicles in protest.
Despite the backlash, Musk remained optimistic in his March 20 meeting with Tesla employees, forecasting strong global sales and reaffirming the Model Y’s position as the world’s best-selling car. He dismissed concerns about the brand crisis, calling this period “stormy weather” and promising a bright future. However, investor confidence has faltered. After an initial surge following Trump’s election—when Musk’s White House involvement was viewed favorably by markets—Tesla’s stock has since lost nearly all of those gains amid mounting public criticism and declining sales in the U.S., Europe, and China. Analysts now characterize the situation as a pivotal branding crisis, with significant stakes for Musk’s future and Tesla’s global standing.
Vice President JD Vance’s recent visit to Greenland has ignited diplomatic tension between the United States and Denmark, marking another escalation in the Trump administration’s ambitions regarding the Arctic territory. During a stop at the Pituffik Space Base, the northernmost U.S. military installation, Vance sharply criticized Denmark’s governance of Greenland, accusing it of neglecting the local population and the island’s strategic security infrastructure. Framing his remarks as a justification for President Trump’s Greenland policy, Vance stated that Denmark had “underinvested” in the region and implied that the U.S. might be compelled to take stronger actions as a result. His rhetoric echoed Trump’s own comments in a contemporaneous NBC interview, where the president declared “we’ll get Greenland,” and suggested acquisition might be possible without military force—while refusing to rule it out.
The Danish government responded swiftly and firmly. Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen released a video message expressing deep displeasure with the tone of the U.S. delegation, calling it inappropriate for communication between close allies. Rasmussen emphasized that Denmark is already increasing its Arctic defense investments, including a $2.1 billion commitment announced in January for naval vessels, drones, and satellites. He pointed to the 1951 defense agreement with the U.S. as a foundation for cooperation and invited Washington to discuss a stronger American military presence—through respectful dialogue, not public condemnation. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen echoed these sentiments, asserting that Denmark remains a reliable NATO partner and defending her country’s record in the Arctic.
Greenlandic officials also pushed back on U.S. rhetoric. Greenland’s Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt emphasized that cooperation, not domination, should guide U.S. policy, stating, “You just don’t take over. You speak and you talk.” Meanwhile, King Frederik X expressed solidarity with Greenland in a public message, reaffirming his emotional connection to the island and its people. The political backlash was accompanied by public protest, with hundreds demonstrating outside the U.S. Embassy in Copenhagen, holding signs such as “Back off, USA,” in reaction to what many saw as a heavy-handed display of American power.
Critically, this diplomatic episode highlights a familiar pattern in Trump-era foreign policy: an aggressive, transactional posture that prioritizes U.S. interests while disregarding the autonomy of smaller allies. Vance’s confrontational tone, particularly on foreign soil, contrasts sharply with Denmark’s insistence on mutual respect and multilateral engagement. While Copenhagen has shown openness to deeper defense collaboration, it has made clear that this must occur within the framework of diplomacy—not coercion. The fact that 85% of Greenlanders reportedly oppose becoming part of the United States further undermines any suggestion that the Trump administration is acting in their interest. Instead, the episode risks alienating both Greenlandic and Danish leaders, potentially weakening NATO unity in the Arctic at a time when strategic cooperation is more critical than ever.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian announced that Iran is rejecting direct negotiations with the U.S. over its nuclear program in response to a letter from President Donald Trump to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. While indirect talks via Oman remain possible, they have made no progress since Trump withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal in 2018.
Pezeshkian said Iran doesn’t oppose dialogue but blames the U.S. for breaking trust. Trump, meanwhile, has threatened military action and harsher sanctions if no deal is reached, warning of bombing "the likes of which they have never seen before."
Tensions in the region are rising amid the Israel-Hamas war and U.S. strikes on Iran-backed Houthis. Though Iran has launched recent attacks on Israel, they caused little damage and were met with severe retaliation.
Internally, mixed signals emerge from Iran. Some government messaging omits anti-American slogans, while others—like Press TV—threaten U.S. bases. Officials, including Parliament Speaker Qalibaf, warned of regional war if Iran is attacked.
Trump’s letter echoes his past tactics with North Korea but is unlikely to succeed; Khamenei has strongly opposed talks with Trump, and Iran’s leadership remains wary, especially after Trump ordered the assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani in 2020.
Meanwhile, Iran continues enriching uranium near weapons-grade levels, escalating fears of a nuclear-armed Iran. Despite Tehran's claims of peaceful intentions, Western officials and the U.N. nuclear watchdog are alarmed by Iran’s accelerated enrichment.
And how soon before Trump goes after corporations and media outlets in the same fashion?
Will be interesting to see what "pro bono" projects Trump drums up for these law firms.