What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
June 26, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump held an event to promote what he repeatedly branded the "one big beautiful bill." His remarks were emblematic of his rhetorical style: sprawling, anecdotal, personal, and improvisational to a fault. While the address was intended to celebrate legislative achievements on taxes, border security, and economic development, the event instead became a chaotic monologue filled with tangents, exaggerations, and grievances that diluted the central message and undermined its persuasive power.
From the outset, the speech was saturated with self-congratulation and hyperbole. Trump frequently touted "the hottest country in the world" or "the biggest tax cut in history" without providing specific legislative detail, substituting concrete policy substance with applause lines and personal anecdotes. He heaped praise on Cabinet members and political allies in a name-check marathon that drifted far from legislative priorities, reinforcing the performative nature of the event more than its legislative significance.
Trump veered repeatedly into off-script stories, including long, irrelevant anecdotes about a waitress in Las Vegas, paperclips, personal conversations with autoworkers, and bizarre asides about Hannibal Lecter and transgender athletes. These digressions, often delivered with an air of stream-of-consciousness improvisation, detracted from the credibility of the policy rollout and diminished the gravitas expected at a high-level legislative announcement. His invocation of fictional serial killers and conspiratorial accusations about "the other side" being either stupid or hating the country were especially jarring and inappropriate for a presidential setting.
Policy claims were made with scant context and dubious accuracy. The assertion of “zero border crossings” in a recent month is not only implausible, it was delivered as fact without multiple-source verification. Similarly, boasts about saving “$1 trillion with the stroke of a pen” or generating "$88 billion in tariffs" lack economic nuance and ignore the downstream impact on consumers and trade partners. Assertions about Biden-era short-term debt or the Federal Reserve's interest rate policies were muddled and economically incoherent.
Trump’s most troubling rhetorical tendency here was his conflation of immigration with crime. His references to immigrants as “murderers,” “insane asylum” patients, or “gang members” were not only dehumanizing, but played to the worst forms of fear-based politics. These statements were delivered without factual grounding and with no distinction between criminal offenders and the vast majority of migrants who follow legal processes. The repeated claim that countries are "sending their worst people" into the United States reduces complex immigration flows to a cartoonish villain narrative.
There were moments intended to highlight ordinary Americans whose lives will be positively impacted by the bill—such as the DoorDash driver or the lineman—but these testimonials were framed awkwardly, often buried under awkward jokes or objectifying comments (e.g., repeatedly commenting on a woman’s appearance despite claiming not to). His appeals to working-class voters were undermined by his inability to maintain focus or demonstrate genuine empathy beyond political utility.
The final portions of the speech pivoted to the culture war, where Trump railed against transgender athletes, ridiculed Democratic leaders, and decried what he sees as the erosion of common sense. His tone became increasingly aggressive and apocalyptic, asserting that Democrats want to “destroy Medicare and Medicaid,” suggesting political opponents “hate our country,” and framing the legislative vote as a test of national survival. The conclusion of the speech doubled down on 2024 election conspiracies and ended with a strange blend of campaign rally fervor and victimhood.
This speech may energize Trump’s base, but failed on multiple levels as a coherent or credible policy announcement. It suffered from extreme bloat, meandering structure, and reckless rhetoric. A bill of the scope he described—one that includes tax reform, immigration overhaul, education policy, and trade—deserved sober presentation and bipartisan engagement, not a spectacle laced with paranoia, mythmaking, and self-praise. As a communication of presidential leadership and legislative vision, this event was less “one big beautiful” anything and more a long, unfocused venting session.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt held a press briefing in a bellicose mix of aggressive messaging, triumphalist rhetoric, and partisan framing that obscured rather than clarified key developments in U.S. foreign and domestic policy. Her central narrative — that President Trump’s airstrike campaign “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities and ushered in an “era of peace” — was delivered with sweeping, uncritical certainty, ignoring the complex realities of regional dynamics, the risks of retaliation, and the disputed intelligence underpinning the administration’s claims. Assertions that Iran’s nuclear program was entirely destroyed, and that the U.S., Israel, Iran, and the UN all agree on that outcome, were made without citing any independently verifiable data or evidence. Instead, Leavitt relied heavily on applause lines and exaggerated language ("total obliteration," "most successful operation in U.S. history") that echoed campaign-style sloganeering rather than informed governance.
Her handling of sensitive national security leaks — specifically, her attack on journalist Natasha Bertrand — was especially alarming. Rather than addressing the substance of the leaked intelligence or acknowledging internal concerns about premature conclusions on Iran’s capabilities, Leavitt used the podium to launch a personal tirade against a specific reporter, attempting to discredit her past work while sidestepping the legal and ethical questions surrounding the leak itself. This tactic not only undermined press freedom but also sent a chilling message to the broader intelligence and media communities: dissenting information, even when accurate, would be treated as sabotage.
On domestic matters, Leavitt’s presentation of the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” as a historic tax cut was riddled with unsubstantiated projections and cheerleading. Claims of $10,000 average take-home pay increases and 15% tax cuts lacked specific legislative citations or economic modeling. Her statements on Medicaid — that the president wants to “get rid of the waste, fraud, and abuse” — recycled vague talking points without acknowledging the controversy surrounding proposed benefit cuts or their potential effects on vulnerable populations.
In addressing journalists’ questions, Leavitt remained evasive on key issues. She repeatedly deferred to President Trump when pressed for specifics on Iran talks, trade deadlines, and military aid decisions, all while projecting certainty about outcomes that remain highly speculative. The administration’s ongoing hostility toward oversight — including potential intelligence restrictions on Congress — reflects a troubling erosion of transparency and democratic accountability.
Altogether, this briefing was not an exercise in open communication but a performance in narrative control. Leavitt adopted a confrontational tone toward the media, exalted the president’s actions without scrutiny, and treated complex geopolitical developments as branding opportunities. The press briefing may have satisfied Trump loyalists, but it did little to inform the public or inspire confidence in the administration’s judgment.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Cane, held a briefing on the airstrikes that occurred in Iran on June 21st on behalf of the U.S. Military. The event was a masterclass in combative political theater masquerading as military transparency. While it aimed to project confidence and patriotic reverence, its content was fundamentally compromised by hyperbole, political grievance, and a persistent antagonism toward the press that undermines its stated purpose.
The briefing attempted to cast the Iran strikes, dubbed “Operation Midnight Hammer,” as not merely successful but unquestionably historic—obliterating nuclear facilities, restoring deterrence, and ushering in peace through American military might. However, this narrative was pushed through a fog of aggressive framing and selective sourcing. Hegseth repeatedly invoked praise from foreign leaders, various intelligence agencies, and even the United Nations to validate claims of success, yet he simultaneously dismissed preliminary U.S. intelligence assessments that cast doubt on the operation’s impact. The result was a highly curated view of battlefield success, propped up by anecdotal quotes and emotional appeals rather than rigorous post-strike analysis.
Instead of allowing space for complexity or uncertainty, Hegseth framed any journalistic skepticism as betrayal, suggesting the press corps is so blinded by anti-Trump bias that it cheers against American pilots. This rhetorical tactic, repeated ad nauseam, was both intellectually dishonest and politically manipulative. It conflated legitimate questions about battle damage assessment (BDA) with disloyalty, and preempted critique by branding it as bad faith. Such demagoguery has no place in military briefings, especially when discussing matters of war, international law, and nuclear proliferation.
The extended technical explanation from General Caine, while informative and commendable in its detail, ultimately served as a shield for a premature political victory lap. Even as the chairman admits that full BDA will take weeks, the Secretary insisted on calling the mission “obliterative” and condemned anyone who hesitated to do the same. This disconnect betrays the real purpose of the event: not to inform, but to control the narrative before more independent assessments can emerge.
Moreover, the repeated personal attacks on individual reporters—particularly toward the end—revealed a defensive, authoritarian streak. Accusing a journalist by name of being “the worst” and misrepresenting the President is not only unbecoming of a senior official, it is also chilling. It signals an administration that views independent scrutiny not as an essential part of democracy, but as an existential threat.
The briefing’s primary flaw was that it elevated performance over transparency, politics over truth. The military deserves recognition for its complex, high-risk operations, but such recognition must be grounded in facts, not propaganda. By using the Pentagon podium to disparage the press, lionize the President, and rush to define the outcome of an unfinished conflict, Hegseth subverted the credibility of the institution he represents—and turned what could have been a substantive briefing into an exercise in political vanity.
The situation surrounding Kilmar Abrego reveals glaring contradictions and systemic dysfunction within the Trump administration’s immigration and prosecutorial apparatus. The administration’s intent to deport Abrego a second time—despite an active criminal case and a prior court ruling barring his return to El Salvador due to risk of persecution—reflects a cavalier disregard for due process and judicial authority. The fact that he was already deported once in violation of a 2019 decision is not just a bureaucratic oversight; it is a legal and moral failure that endangered his life. Now, while he is back in U.S. custody to face charges, the government’s refusal to specify the “third country” to which he might be deported adds an opaque and troubling layer to an already chaotic case.
Justice Department lawyer Jonathan Guynn’s assurance that there are “no imminent plans” to deport Abrego offers little clarity or reassurance, especially when juxtaposed with the administration’s simultaneous insistence that it will take him into immigration custody immediately upon his release from federal detention. The lack of coordination between the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security is made even more apparent by the acknowledgment from federal prosecutor Robert McGuire that he cannot influence DHS decisions. This disconnect exposes a fractured system where immigration enforcement proceeds on autopilot, potentially undermining the integrity of criminal proceedings and judicial rulings alike.
Moreover, Abrego’s case—centered around a man living in Maryland with his U.S. citizen wife and son—has justifiably become a flashpoint in the debate over Trump’s punitive immigration agenda. The government’s actions appear less motivated by justice and more by ideological zeal, especially when basic human rights and legal safeguards are disregarded in favor of political optics. Ultimately, unless the courts intervene decisively, this case risks setting a dangerous precedent where the executive branch selectively complies with judicial rulings and uses deportation as a parallel punishment outside of the criminal justice system.
The Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision in favor of South Carolina’s effort to defund Planned Parenthood represents a significant erosion of individual rights under Medicaid and a broader signal of judicial deference to state-level ideological governance over federally supported healthcare programs. By ruling that individual Medicaid patients cannot sue to enforce their statutory right to choose their health care provider, the Court effectively gutted a long-standing patient protection embedded in the Medicaid Act and neutered the private enforcement mechanism envisioned under the 1871 Civil Rights Act.
Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion narrowly interpreted the statute, suggesting that unless Congress explicitly authorizes private lawsuits in unambiguous terms, courts should not infer them. But this rigid textualism ignores decades of precedent where private citizens could enforce statutory rights through Section 1983. The result is a court-sanctioned barrier to judicial redress for some of the most vulnerable Americans—low-income patients—when their access to healthcare is denied for political, not medical, reasons.
South Carolina’s 2018 executive order, which triggered this case, was a transparent ideological attack on Planned Parenthood, a long-standing target of conservative politicians despite its wide range of non-abortion health services. The ruling hands states a potent tool: they can now impose politically motivated exclusions from Medicaid participation without fear of lawsuits from the patients directly harmed by those decisions. This decision emboldens states to reshape their Medicaid programs to reflect partisan agendas, even at the expense of access to essential care.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent rightly warns that the majority’s reasoning hollows out civil rights law and undermines judicial accountability. The Court’s conservative bloc continues a pattern of restricting access to federal courts, especially for marginalized groups seeking to enforce rights Congress clearly intended them to have. The decision also foreshadows further entrenchment of post-Roe anti-abortion policies under the guise of administrative discretion and fiscal control.
In practice, the ruling will deepen healthcare inequality. Patients in conservative states like South Carolina may now be forced to seek care from state-approved providers, regardless of their personal preferences or continuity of care. At a time when reproductive rights are already under siege, this ruling offers a legal stamp of approval to states that wish to strip access not only to abortion services but to basic preventive healthcare, disproportionately affecting women, especially those with limited financial means.
Ultimately, the Court has sided not with patients or legal precedent, but with a political project to marginalize reproductive health providers and limit civil rights enforcement. It is a stark reminder of how judicial decisions, cloaked in neutral legalese, can have deeply ideological and harmful real-world consequences.
A coalition of nonprofits, tribal entities, and local governments filed a class-action lawsuit against the Trump administration for canceling over 400 federally funded environmental and climate justice grants, totaling $1.7 billion. The lawsuit, led by the Southern Environmental Law Center and other legal groups, argues the terminations were unlawful since Congress had approved the funds. The grants, originally issued under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act during the Biden administration, aimed to combat environmental health disparities in marginalized communities. Plaintiffs from at least a dozen states stated that the cancellations have disrupted critical projects, reduced staffing, and scaled back efforts to address issues such as poor air quality and urban heat.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced new U.S. visa restrictions targeting family members and associates of individuals sanctioned under President Trump’s executive order against drug cartels and trafficking. The move, implemented under the Immigration and Nationality Act, is part of the administration's broader strategy to combat fentanyl smuggling into the U.S., particularly via the southern border. While most smugglers likely lack U.S. visas, the restrictions aim to disrupt their support networks and deter further illegal activity. Rubio emphasized the U.S. will use all tools available to stop the flow of deadly drugs. Details on specific visa types affected remain unclear, but the policy reflects a growing role for the State Department in immigration enforcement alongside DHS.
The Department of Defense is expanding a militarized zone along the southern U.S. border in Texas, designating a new 250-mile stretch along the Rio Grande as a national defense area under Joint Base San Antonio. This move allows military personnel to detain individuals for trespassing until law enforcement takes custody. The strategy builds on earlier designations in New Mexico and western Texas and is part of President Trump's broader border enforcement campaign under a national emergency declaration. Over 1,400 people have been charged for entering these zones, though legal challenges have yielded mixed outcomes. The expansion raises concerns among civilians and humanitarian groups about access and potential violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts military involvement in domestic law enforcement. Meanwhile, overall border arrests for illegal entry have declined.