What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
April 7, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump posted on Truth Social announcing retaliatory tariffs against China, which reads less like a formal policy statement and more like a political performance piece. The tone is characteristically combative, framing China as an enduring economic villain through repeated use of charged phrases like “Retaliatory Tariffs,” “Illegal Subsidization,” and “massive long term Currency Manipulation.” The capitalization of these terms adds drama but undermines the professionalism expected from a presidential statement. Trump’s rhetoric leans heavily on repetition—particularly of phrases like “long term Tariff abuse” and “over and above”—which may serve to inflate the sense of crisis rather than communicate a coherent strategy.
Politically, Trump’s posture reflects a transactional and punitive approach to diplomacy. His ultimatum—demanding China reverse its tariff hikes by April 8 or face a 50% tariff increase the next day—positions the U.S. as an economic enforcer rather than a negotiator. This "my way or the highway" strategy, including the abrupt threat to terminate all talks with China, appears designed to project strength. However, it risks isolating the United States and reducing complex international relationships to simple power contests. The sudden pivot to negotiating with unnamed “other countries” signals volatility more than leverage, especially to international observers who value predictability in trade relations.
Economically, a 50% tariff threat on China is extreme and potentially destabilizing. Such a move would likely reverberate across global supply chains, increase costs for American consumers, and provoke severe countermeasures from Beijing. Trump provides no details about which goods would be affected or how enforcement would unfold, further suggesting that this is a political declaration, not a serious economic blueprint. Moreover, his revival of longstanding accusations—such as currency manipulation and illegal subsidies—lacks current factual grounding. While these claims have a historical context, many are no longer recognized as valid by economists or trade experts.
Ultimately, the post is a textbook example of Trump’s populist economic nationalism. It plays well to his political base by dramatizing confrontation and presenting Trump as a defender of American industry. However, it reveals little in terms of sound economic planning or diplomatic foresight. The bluster raises serious concerns about the administration’s ability to manage an already fragile global trade environment.
Donald Trump’s bilateral meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, though framed as a show of unity between two close allies, ultimately devolves into a chaotic and often incoherent performance dominated by self-praise, political grievances, and a lack of substantive policy detail. Rather than maintaining a diplomatic tone appropriate for a high-level international meeting, Trump opens with exaggerated declarations, including calling himself “by far the best president that Israel has ever even thought of seeing.” This grandstanding sets the stage for a press event that quickly transforms into a campaign-style monologue, sidestepping traditional norms of diplomacy in favor of domestic political theater.
Regarding trade, Trump oscillates between boasting about tariff-driven leverage and threatening punitive measures against allies like Japan and the European Union. His claims are riddled with contradictions; he suggests tariffs may be permanent while also emphasizing that negotiations are ongoing. He praises Netanyahu’s promise to eliminate Israel’s trade deficit with the United States but offers no concrete steps or timelines. This confusion reflects a broader incoherence in Trump’s trade policy—one that hinges more on emotional rhetoric about being “ripped off” than on detailed, reciprocal economic agreements. The overall message is aggressive and protectionist, but its incoherence and frequent historical distortions make it difficult for global partners to engage constructively.
Trump’s remarks on the Gaza Strip and the hostage crisis are among the most controversial moments of the meeting. His language is emotionally charged, filled with references to trauma, Holocaust imagery, and personal conversations with released hostages. However, his proposed solution—to relocate Palestinians to other countries and have the U.S. “own and control” Gaza—veers into a disturbing neo-colonial fantasy that shows little awareness of international law or regional political realities. While he frames this vision as a humanitarian alternative, it carries deeply problematic implications, including forced population transfer and foreign governance over Palestinian land, concepts widely condemned by the international community.
Regarding Iran, Trump announces that direct nuclear talks are set to begin soon but offers no coherent diplomatic framework. His repeated insistence that “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon” is left unsupported by a clear policy beyond vague references to Libya-style disarmament and thinly veiled military threats. The rhetoric may appeal to hawkish audiences but lacks the credibility and structure necessary for successful negotiations. His tendency to downplay diplomatic nuance in favor of confrontation leaves little room for effective de-escalation.
Throughout the event, Trump fixates on past grievances—blaming Biden, Obama, the European Union, and former trade deals for current global imbalances. He misrepresents American economic history, absurdly romanticizing the pre-income tax era as the country’s golden age of wealth. He lashes out at NATO and foreign aid recipients while celebrating a $1 trillion military budget, conflating defense spending with national strength in simplistic terms. His view of foreign relations is deeply transactional: countries are either “ripping us off” or paying up. Allies are to be rewarded; enemies punished. Subtlety and multilateralism are dismissed entirely.
What is most striking about this meeting is its lack of structure. Trump interrupts reporters and Netanyahu, digresses frequently into campaign talking points, and relies on crude simplifications—using phrases like “stupid people” and “beautiful clean coal.” Prime Minister Netanyahu, by contrast, attempts to stay focused on issues like hostages, Gaza, trade, and Iran, but his more disciplined tone is largely overshadowed by Trump’s rambling delivery. The result is a press conference that feels more like a personal rally than a formal bilateral engagement.
This meeting demonstrates a presidency that treats diplomacy as a stage for personal branding rather than strategic statecraft. Despite the occasional gesture toward cooperation, Trump offers little in the way of concrete policy, instead promoting a vision of international affairs rooted in economic nationalism, military dominance, and personal loyalty. For all the claims of resetting the world order in America’s favor, what emerges is a portrait of leadership driven more by ego than strategy and by grievance more than governance.
Donald Trump's remarks during the White House ceremony honoring the 2024 World Series Champion Los Angeles Dodgers were meandering, self-referential, and often lacking the structure expected at a formal celebratory event. While he did touch on the team’s remarkable season—including Shohei Ohtani’s historic 50/50 performance, the resilience of a battered pitching staff, and key World Series moments—tangents and off-topic anecdotes frequently derailed his delivery. Rather than offering a focused tribute to the team’s achievements, Trump often diverted into unrelated commentary about inflation, egg prices, and his personal history with baseball and George Steinbrenner. These asides, particularly those attributing economic improvements to his administration, appeared opportunistic and out of place in a non-political context.
The tone of the speech was flippant at times, with repeated comments about physical appearance—calling players and staff “good-looking” and awkwardly comparing athletes’ muscular builds to “jello-like” politicians. He also injected partisan overtones, praising specific Republican members of Congress while snubbing unnamed senators he “didn’t particularly like.” These political interjections, paired with his continual centering of himself in the narrative, disrupted the spirit of unity and national pride such events typically foster.
In contrast, Dodgers chairman Mark Walter and pitcher Clayton Kershaw offered thoughtful and gracious remarks emphasizing teamwork, humility, and the club’s commitment to community. Their words stood in stark contrast to Trump’s ad-libbed and chaotic delivery. Ultimately, the event reflected a missed opportunity for presidential poise and gravitas. Rather than elevating the players’ accomplishments, Trump’s remarks often felt like a performance—an unscripted blend of campaign rally energy and locker-room banter. While entertaining for some, the moment demanded more dignity and discipline than it received.
Donald Trump released a memorandum directing a new review of Nippon Steel’s proposed acquisition of U.S. Steel, marking a noteworthy shift in executive handling of foreign investment in critical American industries. Issued just months after President Biden formally blocked the acquisition on national security grounds, Trump’s order instructs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to conduct a fresh, de novo review of the transaction. Legally, the memo is grounded in the president’s Article II powers and the Defense Production Act’s Section 721, and it adheres to standard procedural language—calling for confidentiality, interagency coordination, and a final recommendation within 45 days. The directive also asks CFIUS to include each agency’s individual position, promoting transparency within a process that typically lacks it.
However, the memorandum raises several concerns. While procedurally sound, it undermines the continuity and credibility of national security judgments made by the prior administration. Biden’s January order had already determined the transaction posed unacceptable risks; Trump’s decision to revisit the issue may be seen as a stalling tactic or a favor to corporate interests, particularly foreign ones. Politically, this is an odd move for a president who has long styled himself as a populist economic nationalist. By reopening the door to a Japanese acquisition of an iconic American steelmaker, Trump risks alienating the very labor and industrial constituencies he frequently claims to champion. If he ultimately permits the acquisition, critics may accuse him of hypocrisy. If he blocks it again, the memorandum will have served little purpose beyond signaling procedural defiance of Biden.
The memo is also notable for what it omits: there is no mention of new evidence, shifting geopolitical dynamics, or revised economic assessments that would justify a reexamination. This absence gives the impression that the move is driven more by political motivations than substantive concerns. While the document's tone is blandly bureaucratic, its implications are far-reaching. In revisiting a deal already deemed a threat to national security, the Trump administration risks sending mixed signals about the United States’ stance on foreign control of critical infrastructure—particularly in a global environment where industrial sovereignty is increasingly tied to strategic autonomy.
Ultimately, this memorandum invites scrutiny for its policy implications and potential contradiction of Trump’s longstanding rhetoric on protecting American industry. It raises the question of whether other strategic or political calculations are tempering the current administration’s commitment to "America First" principles. The outcome of the CFIUS review—and how Trump acts on its recommendations—will be a revealing test of whether his administration intends to uphold or revise the hard line on foreign acquisitions that characterized the previous presidency.
A U.S. federal appeals court has declined to block a ruling that orders the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Maryland after he was wrongly deported to El Salvador during the Trump administration’s hardline immigration crackdown. The decision by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allows U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis’s order to take effect. Xinis, an Obama appointee based in Maryland, had ruled on Friday that the federal government must bring Abrego Garcia back by Monday, acknowledging the deportation as improper and likely unlawful. Abrego Garcia, one of hundreds of migrants deported to El Salvador in recent months, was accused by the administration of having ties to the MS-13 gang, based on a report from a confidential informant. However, his family adamantly denies any gang affiliation, and his lawyers describe the situation as a "Kafka-esque mistake" that placed an innocent man in danger.
Just before the lower court’s deadline expired, the Trump administration filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. In response, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a temporary stay, effectively halting the requirement that the administration return Abrego Garcia until the high court can evaluate the government’s emergency request. Importantly, Roberts's order does not address the substance of the case and is not necessarily an indication of how the Court will rule. In a similar case earlier this year, Roberts also granted a temporary delay on a judge’s deadline—only to later join the Court’s liberal justices and Justice Amy Coney Barrett in siding against the administration.
The administration has argued that it is now unable to comply with the order because Abrego Garcia is in the custody of Salvadoran authorities. In court filings, the Justice Department stated that the order “sets the United States up for failure,” suggesting that it no longer has the power to retrieve him. Abrego Garcia’s attorneys reject this argument, saying that he remains imprisoned in El Salvador solely because of U.S. action and that the government cannot evade responsibility by shifting blame onto a foreign system. While the administration has secured a short-term delay through the Supreme Court, the legal battle over Abrego Garcia’s fate continues—and it could have far-reaching implications for executive authority, judicial oversight, and the accountability of U.S. immigration enforcement.
The Trump administration has abruptly terminated some of the final remaining U.S. funding for the United Nations World Food Program (WFP) and other humanitarian organizations, cutting off critical aid to millions in conflict-stricken countries such as Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Somalia. Despite earlier assurances from Secretary of State Marco Rubio that life-saving aid would be protected, the administration canceled approximately 60 contracts providing essential services like food, water, shelter, and medical care. These terminations were issued under the direction of Jeremy Lewin, a top official at Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has led efforts to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) since President Trump took office.
One of the most severe cuts was in Syria, where $230 million in contracts were terminated, including a $111 million program that provided daily food assistance to 1.5 million people. All U.S. food aid to Yemen, one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, was also halted—impacting supplies already delivered to distribution centers. U.S.-funded WFP programs in Lebanon and Jordan, crucial to supporting Syrian refugees, were likewise cut, along with humanitarian support in Somalia, Afghanistan, and Zimbabwe. A separate program offering Afghan women educational opportunities abroad was also ended, potentially forcing participants to return to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
The WFP, the world’s largest food aid agency, was heavily dependent on U.S. support, receiving $4.5 billion of its $9.8 billion in funding last year. The cuts have sparked concern among aid officials, who were only just beginning to understand the full scope of the cancellations. Even services at the volatile al-Hol camp in Syria, where families of alleged Islamic State fighters are detained, were briefly suspended, risking instability and potential uprisings. While the Trump administration had pledged to preserve the most urgent humanitarian programs, many of the contracts now canceled were among the few Rubio had promised to protect. The move continues a broader effort by the administration to eliminate foreign assistance programs it views as wasteful or politically liberal in nature.
Vice Adm. Shoshana Chatfield, a senior U.S. military official serving as America’s representative to NATO’s Military Committee, has been fired amid the Trump administration's sweeping purge of top military leadership. Whether the decision originated from the Pentagon or the White House remains unclear. Still, it follows the recent removal of several national security officials, including Gen. Timothy Haugh, head of the NSA and Cyber Command. Haugh’s firing came shortly after President Trump met with far-right activist Laura Loomer, who later claimed credit for his dismissal on social media. Chatfield, the first woman to lead the U.S. Naval War College, had previously been targeted by conservative groups for her support of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The Pentagon has not responded to inquiries about the rationale behind her dismissal, who ultimately made the decision, or whether other officers are at risk.
Chatfield’s firing adds to a growing list of high-ranking officers dismissed under Trump’s second term, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. CQ Brown, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti, and Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Jim Slife. While most public criticism of the firings has come from Democrats, there has been bipartisan concern, particularly regarding the removal of Gen. Brown, which lawmakers described as “unfortunate” during confirmation hearings for Trump’s nominee to replace him, retired Gen. Dan Caine. The removal of a senior U.S. official from NATO has alarmed several European defense leaders, who worry that the United States is disengaging from its traditional leadership role within the alliance. Compounding this concern is the upcoming retirement of Gen. Christopher Cavoli, head of European Command and Supreme Allied Commander-Europe. The abrupt nature of these dismissals and the growing influence of political ideologues like Loomer suggest that the Trump administration is reshaping military leadership according to partisan and ideological lines, potentially weakening both U.S. military stability and its strategic alliances abroad.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration can use the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants accused of gang affiliation but must allow them a court hearing before removal. The decision, sharply divided along ideological lines, permits these deportation-related legal challenges to occur in Texas, not Washington, D.C., where the initial injunction had been issued. The conservative majority maintained that migrants are still entitled to "notice and an opportunity" to challenge their removal, but the dissent, joined in part by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, criticized the decision as enabling the administration to sidestep judicial review. The case arose after President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act—for the first time since World War II—to declare the Tren de Aragua gang an invading force, triggering mass deportations. A lawsuit filed by the ACLU led to a temporary halt by D.C. District Judge James E. Boasberg, who also ordered the return of deported migrants. The administration ignored that directive, citing a “state secrets privilege” and refusing to disclose further information.
The Court's unsigned majority opinion argued that legal procedures remain intact despite the administration's controversial tactics. However, the liberal justices warned that the ruling rewards the executive branch’s efforts to evade oversight. The political reaction has been intense: Attorney General Pam Bondi hailed the ruling as a victory for national security, accusing a “rogue” D.C. judge of interfering with foreign policy. Trump and his allies have gone so far as to call for Judge Boasberg’s impeachment, prompting an unusual public response from Chief Justice John Roberts, who rebuked the idea and reaffirmed that impeachment is not an appropriate response to legal disagreements. This case has become a flashpoint in the broader battle over executive power, judicial independence, and the rule of law during Trump’s second term.
How you do this amazes me. This is courageous and it must take incredible stamina. Maybe this should be titled “ What didn’t Trump Do Today.” Thanks for keeping us honest.