What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
May 16, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump’s Truth Social post attacking Bruce Springsteen is a bombastic and hostile outburst that deserves serious critique, particularly given that it comes from a sitting president. The language Trump uses—calling Springsteen “dumb as a rock,” a “dried out ‘prune’ of a rocker,” and a “pushy, obnoxious JERK”—is strikingly juvenile and unpresidential. Resorting to personal insults and mocking someone’s appearance reflects a level of pettiness and insecurity unbecoming of any public official, let alone the President of the United States. The tone of the post reads more like a playground taunt than a reasoned rebuttal, and it continues Trump’s well-established pattern of reacting to celebrity criticism with belittlement and threats.
Trump’s specific complaint that Springsteen criticized him while abroad is both hypocritical and constitutionally dubious. Americans do not forfeit their First Amendment rights when they leave the country. The suggestion that Springsteen should “KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT” until he returns to the U.S. is authoritarian in tone and fundamentally at odds with democratic values. Trump himself has a long record of attacking U.S. institutions and political opponents while on foreign soil, including remarks made during official state visits. The criticism here is not about patriotism; it is about policing dissent.
Additionally, Trump’s claim that Springsteen is “not a talented guy” is undermined by the fact that Trump’s own rallies have frequently used Springsteen’s music without permission. This kind of revisionist insult—praising or using someone’s work until they become a critic—is typical of Trump’s behavior toward public figures who cross him. The pattern extends to entertainers like Taylor Swift, George Clooney, and Meryl Streep, whom Trump has similarly attacked after political disagreements.
Most troubling is the implicit threat in Trump’s final line: “Then we’ll all see how it goes for him!” This is not just rhetorical bluster—it suggests retribution. Such language is chilling in a democratic society and signals a willingness to target individuals for their speech. Rather than engaging with Springsteen’s actual criticisms—namely, that Trump is fostering authoritarianism—the president doubled down with the very kind of authoritarian rhetoric Springsteen was warning against. The overall effect of Trump’s post is not to defend his record or refute criticism, but to intimidate, insult, and deflect. In doing so, he once again demonstrates a deep hostility to dissent and a dangerous disregard for democratic norms.
The Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan men detained in Texas under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, which allows the president to detain or remove foreign nationals from enemy nations during war or invasion. The Court returned the case to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, criticizing the administration’s lack of due process and stating that the detainees weren’t given proper notice or a fair opportunity to challenge their removal.
This legal conflict began after President Trump, via a March executive order, labeled members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as an invading force and authorized mass detentions and removals of Venezuelans aged 14 and older. Some detainees were deported to El Salvador's harshest prison, reportedly even after a judge had issued a stay.
The Supreme Court rebuked the administration’s hasty removal procedures—particularly the 24-hour English-only notice given to Spanish-speaking detainees—and emphasized that such removals must comply with constitutional guarantees of fair treatment. The justices also ruled that the appeals court wrongly dismissed the detainees’ case and should determine what procedural rights they are entitled to.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred, agreeing with the majority but expressing a preference for the Supreme Court to resolve the legal questions directly. In dissent, Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, argued that the Court had no authority to intervene, that the district judge had not denied relief, and that the detainees had not met the legal standard for emergency action.
In sum, while the justices did not rule on whether the removals were ultimately lawful, they required lower courts to ensure that the government’s actions respect due process rights before any deportations proceed.
Donald Trump’s Truth Social post following the Supreme Court ruling is a provocative and deeply misleading statement that misrepresents the law, inflames public sentiment, and undermines constitutional norms. He begins by framing the Court’s decision as a reckless allowance for violent criminals and “mentally insane” individuals to remain in the U.S. without immediate deportation. This is a gross distortion. The ruling in question merely reaffirmed that even noncitizens, including those accused of crimes, are entitled to due process under the Constitution before being removed—hardly a radical or unreasonable position. Trump characterizes due process as a “long, protracted, and expensive Legal Process,” ignoring the reality that such safeguards exist to prevent wrongful removals and are a cornerstone of American legal tradition.
The post relies heavily on inflammatory language, describing immigrants as “murderers,” “drug dealers,” and agents of “havoc” and “bedlam,” all of which serve to stoke fear and promote the false equivalence between immigration and violent crime. This kind of rhetoric is not only dehumanizing but is contradicted by data showing that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans. Trump also attacks the legitimacy of the judiciary, accusing the Supreme Court of preventing him from doing “what [he] was elected to do,” as if the president is exempt from constitutional checks and balances. By singling out Justices Alito and Thomas for praise, he reduces the role of the Court to one of partisan loyalty, which further erodes trust in the judicial branch.
Moreover, the post is internally inconsistent. Trump criticizes Joe Biden for allowing immigrants in “without any ‘PROCESS’” while simultaneously objecting to the legal process required to remove them. This contradiction betrays a broader contempt for legal norms and suggests that the rule of law is merely a tool to be discarded when politically inconvenient. His reference to individuals who are “mentally insane” is both stigmatizing and outdated, using mental illness as a scare tactic to argue against constitutional protections—a dangerous and discriminatory move.
Ultimately, Trump’s post is not a substantive or responsible critique of immigration policy or judicial oversight. It is a demagogic outburst that distorts legal principles, vilifies vulnerable populations, and promotes executive overreach. It reflects an authoritarian worldview in which constitutional limits are obstacles, the courts are political enemies, and human rights are conditional. This kind of rhetoric may energize a base but does so at the cost of truth, civility, and democratic governance.
Donald Trump's interview with Bret Baier, conducted during his May 2025 trip to the Middle East, revealed a rambling, self-congratulatory, and often incoherent view of U.S. foreign policy under his leadership. Throughout the conversation, Trump repeatedly drifted between topics without logical progression, offering a stream-of-consciousness delivery that made it difficult to discern clear policy positions. His speech was filled with contradictions, vague references, and half-finished thoughts, underscoring a chaotic communication style that prioritizes theatrics over clarity. The former president relied heavily on unsubstantiated claims—boasting that he had made “12 times” the value of U.S. aid to Ukraine in a few days, that he “saved” the Middle East from Chinese influence, and that his trip was the most successful of any president in history—none of which were supported by data or concrete outcomes. These exaggerations were framed as evidence of personal greatness rather than achievements for the United States, reinforcing Trump’s longstanding tendency to treat foreign policy as a business transaction centered around himself.
Trump’s diplomatic style remains transactional and ego-driven. He repeatedly emphasized how much foreign leaders “love” him, attributing geopolitical success to his personal charisma and pre-existing relationships. His descriptions of foreign leaders as “handsome,” “tough guys,” or “good people” trivialized complex alliances and ignored the broader political context. Particularly concerning was his embrace of Syria’s new leader—someone with a known militant past—as a “terrific” and “thankful” figure, suggesting that gratitude toward Trump was more important than accountability or democratic values. His discussion of the Israel–Hamas conflict similarly lacked nuance. He proposed turning Gaza into a “freedom zone,” an idea that came off as a simplistic branding exercise rather than a serious policy solution. His comments on Prime Minister Netanyahu were ambivalent; Trump acknowledged Netanyahu’s anger and “bravery” while subtly implying that October 7 would not have occurred under his own presidency—a refrain he used frequently to position himself as the only effective leader.
The interview also veered into conspiratorial and reckless rhetoric. Trump accused former FBI Director James Comey of “calling for his assassination” based on an obscure social media post—a baseless claim he described as “obvious to any child.” He used this moment to characterize Comey as a “dirty cop” and hinted that legal retribution would come via unspecified loyalists, invoking “Pam and Kash” without explanation. Similarly, he expressed doubt about the investigation into the attempted assassination against him in Butler, Pennsylvania, citing suspicious details about the shooter’s cellphone apps and legal representation. These comments reinforced his pattern of elevating conspiracy theories and suggesting hidden enemies at work, while distancing himself from institutional responsibility.
On issues of war and peace, Trump’s posture was inconsistent and opportunistic. He claimed credit for diffusing tensions between India and Pakistan and suggested he alone could end the Russia–Ukraine war, even as he appeared to sympathize more with Putin than with President Zelensky. He characterized Zelensky as a “great salesman” and mocked U.S. aid to Ukraine as “pissed away,” reducing the crisis to a matter of dollars and personal irritation. While he spoke of resolving the conflict, he also minimized Ukraine’s position, saying Zelensky “doesn’t have the cards,” and entertained territorial concessions as a plausible outcome. Trump’s focus on the financial cost of war—boasting that he made more money in four days than was spent in Ukraine—betrayed a troubling view of global conflicts as mere balance sheets.
Finally, Trump’s view of diplomacy as spectacle dominated the conversation. He relished the “fanfares,” public adoration, and comparisons between aging Air Force One planes and sleek Middle Eastern aircraft. He dismissed concerns over a donated Qatari Boeing jet as a “radical left story” and framed the gift as a symbol of loyalty to him personally rather than an institutional defense arrangement. His closing remarks underscored this mindset—he promised to return to the world stage not because of policy necessity, but because, in his words, “nobody’s ever seen anything like this.” Ultimately, the interview painted a picture of foreign policy guided by vanity, improvisation, and autocratic flattery. The lack of strategic coherence, moral clarity, or institutional respect in Trump’s commentary underscores why so many diplomats, analysts, and even allies view his return to international affairs with profound unease.
The Trump administration’s decision to permit the sale of forced reset triggers represents a radical and dangerous deviation from established gun policy, one that prioritizes the demands of gun rights extremists over public safety and legal consistency. Despite Attorney General Pamela Bondi's framing of the settlement as a defense of Second Amendment rights, this move effectively legalizes a class of devices that functionally transform semi-automatic rifles into de facto machine guns, despite federal law prohibiting civilian ownership of machine guns since 1986.
The settlement binds the federal government in perpetuity from enforcing existing machine gun prohibitions against these devices. That is a breathtaking concession of regulatory authority. No administration has ever agreed to permanently forfeit such enforcement power, especially on a matter as consequential as public weapons access. This is not merely poor governance—it is a preemptive surrender of executive discretion in favor of a special interest group. The fact that the lawsuit was brought by an organization co-founded by Trump’s former White House counsel, David Warrington, who until recently was lead counsel on the case, raises serious ethical concerns and the appearance of a corrupt backroom deal.
The administration’s public safety rationale is laughably thin. While the Justice Department claims the settlement will promote “safe and responsible use,” it offers no enforcement mechanism, oversight process, or concrete standards. The requirement that Rare Breed Triggers not design forced reset triggers for pistols and enforce patents to limit misuse is not a meaningful check. These are private commercial promises, not enforceable safety regulations. The ATF’s own analysis confirms that forced reset triggers can allow AR-15s to fire at rates comparable to military-grade M-16s—yet the administration is allowing these to be sold without background checks or age restrictions, and with full legal protection.
The timing of this settlement, following a conservative-leaning 5th Circuit Court’s skepticism toward the ban, appears to be an attempt to short-circuit an eventual Supreme Court review. Ironically, the same Trump administration that once banned bump stocks following the Las Vegas mass shooting is now reversing course under the cover of judicial uncertainty, despite no change in the inherent lethality of the technology. This reversal reflects political opportunism, not legal principle or public interest.
Ultimately, this decision invites more gun violence and mass casualty potential into American communities under the false banner of constitutional rights. It reflects a capture of federal regulatory power by ideological hardliners and profit-seeking manufacturers.
President Trump has fired nearly 600 employees—about one-third of the staff—at Voice of America (VOA) as part of a broader effort to downsize the federal broadcaster and shift its editorial direction. Most of those terminated were contractors, with dismissal notices requiring them to return VOA property by May 30. The move follows the Trump administration’s decision to align VOA with conservative outlet One America News for content distribution, a strategy spearheaded by Kari Lake, now senior adviser at the U.S. Agency for Global Media. Lake, a Trump loyalist, has pledged to use VOA to promote the administration’s narrative globally. The layoffs come despite recent federal court rulings suggesting that dismantling VOA may be unlawful.