What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
March 18, 2025 Recap
Today’s call between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, which resulted in a limited ceasefire targeting Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, reveals more about Trump’s approach to foreign policy than any meaningful step toward peace. While the White House attempted to frame the agreement as a breakthrough, the reality on the ground—air raid sirens and explosions in Kyiv shortly after the call—highlights the hollowness of the so-called progress. Putin’s refusal to agree to a broader 30-day ceasefire and his repeated demands for Ukraine to surrender its NATO ambitions, cede control of annexed territories, and downsize its military underscore his continued disinterest in a fair or durable peace. Yet Trump appears more eager to appease Putin than to hold him accountable.
One of the most troubling aspects of the Trump–Putin engagement is the way it sidelines Ukraine. Zelenskyy’s concerns about being excluded from major discussions are well-founded. Negotiating terms that affect Ukraine’s survival without its full participation is not only undemocratic but emboldens Russia’s aggression. Trump’s casual reference to dividing “assets” like land and power plants between Russia and Ukraine—terms the White House and Kremlin conveniently omitted from their official statements—suggests a willingness to barter away Ukraine’s sovereignty for the optics of a deal. This transactional mindset, treating Ukraine as a problem to be managed rather than a partner to be supported, mirrors Trump’s pattern of valuing strongmen relationships over democratic alliances.
The ceasefire’s timing, coinciding with the anniversary of Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, adds an ironic layer to the narrative. Rather than confronting Russia’s expansionist history, Trump appeared to normalize it by using the moment as a launchpad for negotiations that validate Putin’s leverage. His public comments that Putin “has the cards” and Zelenskyy does not betray a worldview that rewards brute force over principle. By framing Ukraine as the party prolonging the war and expressing admiration for Putin’s resolve, Trump reinforces a dangerous precedent that aggression pays.
Even more alarming is Trump’s decision to briefly cut military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine after a tense meeting with Zelenskyy. This action was only reversed once Ukraine agreed to Trump’s ceasefire terms. This tactic of coercion, rather than collaboration, erodes trust and weakens America’s role as a dependable ally. Furthermore, his repeated signals that he is more focused on restoring U.S.–Russia relations than maintaining transatlantic unity suggest a return to the isolationist tendencies that marked his first term.
The inclusion of unrelated matters, like Iran and even a proposed hockey tournament between American and Russian players, further trivializes the gravity of the war in Ukraine. These diversions make it clear that Trump is focused on public relations wins rather than hard diplomacy. While any pause in violence is welcome, the cost of that pause—negotiated without full Ukrainian involvement, lacking enforceable guarantees, and accompanied by continued missile strikes—cannot be overlooked.
Trump’s handling of the situation is less a step toward peace and more a performance aimed at projecting control and negotiation prowess. However, real peace cannot be achieved through deals that reward invasion, ignore Ukraine’s agency, and sidestep accountability.
Source: Associated Press
Donald Trump's post on Truth Social concerning U.S. District Judge James Boasberg is less a substantive critique and more a familiar cascade of personal attacks, political grievances, and election-related misinformation.
Rather than presenting any legal argument or addressing a specific judicial ruling, Trump launches into ad hominem insults, labeling Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic,” “troublemaker,” and “agitator. " He undermines judicial independence without citing misconduct or legal error. His reference to President Obama’s appointment of Boasberg frames the judge’s legitimacy through a partisan lens, a tactic Trump frequently employs when rulings or processes don’t favor him.
The post veers sharply off-topic into Trump’s own grievances about the 2020 election, rehashing disproven claims about winning swing states, counties, and the popular vote. This not only deflects from any real discussion about Boasberg but also recycles debunked talking points in an apparent effort to galvanize his base with a victim narrative.
Trump’s call for Boasberg’s impeachment lacks constitutional or procedural basis, reflecting a broader disdain for checks and balances rather than any credible accusation of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The conflation of the judge with Trump’s broader frustrations about immigration and crime, including graphic generalizations about immigrants as “deranged murderers,” plays into fear-based rhetoric rather than policy discussion.
In tone and substance, the post exemplifies Trump’s ongoing use of social media to delegitimize the judiciary, stir partisan resentment, and elevate himself as a singular vessel of the people's will. It does not engage with legal facts or institutional norms and instead furthers a personality-driven narrative that prioritizes loyalty over law.
Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare public rebuke of President Donald Trump’s call to impeach a federal judge, reaffirming that impeachment is not a proper response to judicial disagreements. Trump demanded the removal of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg after Boasberg blocked deportation flights, which is tied to Trump's use of the rarely invoked Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
In a heated social media post, Trump accused Boasberg of defying the will of the voters and labeled him a “troublemaker,” escalating his ongoing attacks on the judiciary. Legal scholars and experts have warned that Trump’s rhetoric poses a direct threat to judicial independence. The move has fueled concerns of a constitutional crisis, especially as Trump-aligned lawmakers prepare articles of impeachment against Boasberg and other judges.
Despite earlier denials from Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt that Trump sought judicial impeachments, the White House now faces criticism over growing efforts to intimidate judges. The situation comes amid broader legal tensions, including an ongoing lawsuit against Leavitt and others by the Associated Press over alleged press freedom violations.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has demanded detailed explanations from the Trump administration regarding two deportation flights that took off last weekend, despite his order halting deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. President Trump had invoked the rarely used law to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members from the group Tren de Aragua, claiming they posed a national security threat akin to "irregular warfare."
Boasberg's order was issued Saturday evening, but Justice Department lawyers argued the flights had already left U.S. airspace before the written order was filed and claimed his oral orders were not binding. The judge has now asked for precise timelines of the flights and the number of deportees removed solely under the 1798 law.
This legal clash has sparked concerns about executive overreach and potential constitutional conflict between the executive and judiciary branches.
On the international front, Venezuela condemned the deportations as illegal and said the migrants' rights were violated. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that Venezuela could face more sanctions if it refuses to accept the deportees.
Families of Venezuelan deportees are struggling to learn the whereabouts of their loved ones amid accusations that immigration officials are not reviewing cases individually.
The incident highlights growing tensions between Trump's use of emergency-era legal authorities, the court's role in checking the power, and international diplomatic fallout over deportations.
Vice President JD Vance’s remarks at the American Dynamism Summit attempted to bridge the ideological gap between tech-driven innovation and working-class populism, but the speech ultimately devolved into a blend of political theater, economic oversimplification, and ideological pandering. While he positioned himself as a unifier of “two tribes”—the techno-optimists and the populist right—his arguments lacked the nuance and intellectual rigor necessary to resolve the identified tensions. Instead of offering coherent solutions to the structural challenges posed by AI, automation, and globalization, Vance relied on recycled talking points, historical cherry-picking, and emotional appeals that served more to reinforce partisan identity than provide policy clarity.
His central claim—that technology can and should enhance labor rather than replace it—is not controversial, but his supporting examples were misleading. The analogy between ATMs and AI is facile at best, failing to address the scale and scope of disruption posed by generative AI, robotics, and machine learning in modern industries. Furthermore, invoking Pope John Paul II’s encyclical on labor may score rhetorical points with religious conservatives, but it does little to reconcile the contradictory policy impulses in Vance’s remarks. He calls for bold innovation while also advocating for heavy-handed tariffs, aggressive immigration crackdowns, and energy deregulation—all of which tend to benefit entrenched industrial players over agile tech startups. The speech attempts to champion both innovation and protectionism. Still, it offers no real explanation for how a modern economy can embrace AI leadership while walling itself off from global labor markets, talent pools, and supply chains.
Vance’s discussion of globalization was deeply reductive. His portrayal of America’s manufacturing decline as the consequence of an “addiction” to cheap labor ignores the broader economic and geopolitical complexities that shaped trade policy over the last four decades. His assertion that design and manufacturing must occur in the same geography misrepresents how global innovation ecosystems function today. The idea that Apple designing in Cupertino and manufacturing in China represents a fatal flaw in U.S. strategy is simplistic and ignores how global supply chains, specialization, and comparative advantage work in a 21st-century economy. Worse, Vance offers no credible roadmap for reshoring manufacturing at scale—only vague promises of tax cuts and deregulation.
Self-congratulatory, implausible claims further marred the speech. Citing a 94% drop in illegal border crossings and $1.7 trillion in new investments within two months of a new administration strains credibility and reads as pure political fiction. These numbers, offered without context or verification, undermine the seriousness of Vance’s message and expose the speech as more a campaign rally than a policy address. His anecdote about a tech CEO suggesting “immersive gaming” could replace job purpose is emblematic of this style—less a genuine critique of Silicon Valley culture and more a lazy caricature designed to provoke the audience’s contempt. This approach might score points with conservative voters wary of elitist technocrats, but it does nothing to advance a substantive conversation about aligning technological advancement with human flourishing.
Vance’s rhetoric on immigration was particularly troubling. By painting immigrant labor solely as a drag on wages and innovation, he ignored the indispensable role immigrants play in U.S. tech, healthcare, and manufacturing sectors—not to mention their outsized contribution to American entrepreneurship. His framing not only alienates the very workforce that sustains much of the innovation he claims to champion, but it also reveals the deeper contradiction at the heart of his message: he wants a booming, competitive tech sector while shutting off its access to talent and markets.
Vance’s speech tried to market Trump-era economic nationalism as a forward-thinking innovation policy. It wasn’t. It was a repackaging of 20th-century protectionism dressed up in 21st-century tech jargon. Rather than outlining a serious strategy for industrial renewal or AI leadership, the speech offered a feel-good narrative for an audience eager to be told they’re building the future—without addressing the complex, uncomfortable realities that actually building that future entails.
Two Democratic commissioners of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, announced on Tuesday that they were illegally fired by President Donald Trump. This raises significant concerns about the integrity and independence of regulatory agencies. In a statement on X, Bedoya called the dismissal “corruption plain and simple.” At the same time, Slaughter accused the president of violating both the plain language of federal statute and clear Supreme Court precedent. A White House official confirmed the firings but declined to elaborate, offering no further comment.
The commissioners’ removal directly challenges long-standing legal protections that prevent the arbitrary dismissal of FTC officials. In 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States that FTC commissioners may only be removed by the president “for cause,” such as neglect of duty or misconduct. This ruling established a legal foundation for agency independence, ensuring that bipartisan, multi-member bodies like the FTC can operate without political interference from the White House.
The firings come amid Trump's broader efforts to expand presidential power over independent federal agencies. He has previously faced legal challenges for removing officials from the National Labor Relations Board, another agency protected by similar statutes. More recently, on February 18, Trump issued an executive order aimed at increasing White House control over independent regulatory bodies. Legal experts have interpreted this as part of a larger campaign to test—and potentially dismantle—existing limits on executive authority.
Following the firings, the remaining FTC leadership includes Chairman Andrew Ferguson and Commissioner Melissa Holyoak, both Republicans. They have expressed support for the Trump administration’s legal position, arguing that the president should have full authority to remove agency officials at will. Their stance signals a significant shift in the FTC’s political makeup and could lead to major changes in the agency’s approach to consumer protection, antitrust enforcement, and overall independence.
The Trump administration has given Maine until March 27 to reverse its policy allowing transgender student-athletes to compete on girls’ and women’s sports teams or face potential legal action from the Department of Justice. The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) claims that Maine’s Department of Education, the Maine Principals’ Association (MPA), and Greely High School have violated Title IX by allowing trans athletes to participate according to their gender identity rather than sex assigned at birth.
The OCR offered a settlement requiring these entities to ban transgender girls from female sports, but the offer expires in 10 days. The case may be referred to the DOJ if Maine doesn't comply.
Maine officials, including Gov. Janet Mills and Attorney General Aaron Frey, argue that the state's anti-discrimination laws protect trans students' rights and have accused the Trump administration of political overreach and using children "as pawns." Frey vowed to defend Maine’s laws in court.
The MPA maintains that its policy aligns with the Maine Human Rights Act, not federal Title IX. It argues that it is not subject to Title IX because it does not receive federal funds. Greely High School, at the center of the controversy, has not commented.
The issue escalated when Rep. Laurel Libby (R) posted a photo of a trans athlete from Greely High on social media. The Democratic-led state House censured Libby, leading her to sue state officials, claiming her First Amendment rights were violated.
The Trump administration is complying with court orders to reinstate over 24,000 probationary federal workers who were recently fired as part of efforts to reduce the size of the federal workforce. These employees, who had not yet earned full civil service protections, were let go following guidance from the Office of Personnel Management.
Now, 18 federal departments and agencies are working to reverse the terminations. However, many of the reinstated employees are being placed on paid administrative leave rather than returning to active duty. Agencies cite logistical challenges, including the need to redo onboarding and obtain security clearances, and they warn that a potential appellate court reversal could again change these employees' status.
Federal judges, including Judge William Alsup, have criticized this approach, arguing that administrative leave does not restore active service, as the court intended in its preliminary injunctions.
Some affected workers, like FAA employee Charles Spitzer-Stadtlander, have received reinstatement and back pay. However, others, such as former CDC staff, report not being contacted or reinstated, leading to confusion and frustration.
The administration has until Tuesday at noon to clarify the extent to which reinstated workers are being placed on administrative leave.
A federal judge, Theodore D. Chuang, has blocked Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from continuing its dismantling of USAID, ruling that its actions likely violated the Constitution. This includes halting terminations of contracts, grants, and staff and forbidding sharing sensitive data.
Judge Chuang pointed to Elon Musk’s de facto leadership of DOGE, citing multiple public acknowledgments by President Trump and Musk’s own social media posts. The judge emphasized that Musk was functioning as an agency head without Senate confirmation, a potential constitutional violation.
The case, brought by affected USAID employees and contractors, marks one of the first significant legal setbacks for Musk’s expanding federal role and the Trump administration’s efforts to slash government agencies.
The White House criticized the ruling, calling the judge a "rogue" and promising to appeal. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs hailed it as a major victory against the reckless dismantling of essential public services.
Judge Chuang also raised concerns about security clearance violations and misuse of sensitive data by Musk’s team and ordered the reinstatement of disabled systems. However, DOGE may still access internal data as long as it is not shared externally.
The Trump administration is considering a major Pentagon restructuring that could end the U.S.’s historic role as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), a position held by American generals since Dwight D. Eisenhower. This change, part of a broader cost-cutting initiative, would consolidate five of the military’s 11 combatant commands, potentially merging U.S. European and Africa Commands and Southern and Northern Commands. The Pentagon estimates first-year savings of $270 million, but critics warn the move prioritizes budget cuts over strategic planning.
Former military leaders, including retired Adm. James Stavridis, say relinquishing SACEUR would severely weaken U.S. influence in NATO and signal a retreat from the alliance. Additional cuts include moving parts of the Joint Staff out of the Pentagon, eliminating the J7 training directorate, and halting a planned expansion of U.S. Forces Japan, saving $1.18 billion. Experts caution that the changes could reduce U.S. access to key global bases, limit coordination with allies, and overwhelm commanders with overly broad responsibilities. While still under review, the plan has sparked concerns about diminishing America’s global military leadership.
The Trump administration plans to eliminate over 1,000 scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD) as part of a massive downsizing effort. The move would dissolve the ORD entirely, cutting up to 75% of its workforce and redistributing the remaining staff. This follows earlier firings of probationary employees—many of whom were ordered reinstated by a federal judge but are now on administrative leave.
Critics argue the restructuring would undermine science-based policy and benefit corporate interests by sidelining expert input. Former ORD head Chris Frey called the move a way to "silence" scientific voices. The ORD’s scientists play a critical role in researching air and water pollution, public health, climate change, and chemical safety.
The layoffs are part of a broader push by President Trump and new EPA administrator Lee Zeldin to slash the agency’s budget by 65%, close environmental justice offices, end diversity programs, and cut billions in environmental grants. Environmental advocates warn the cuts would severely damage public health protections nationwide.
The Trump administration is reportedly considering eliminating the CDC’s Division of HIV Prevention and shifting its responsibilities to another HHS agency, possibly the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). While the plan is still in the early stages and no final decision has been made, advocates warn it could severely disrupt HIV prevention efforts, push the burden onto states, and lead to increased costs and new infections.
The CDC division currently tracks infections, promotes prevention (including PrEP), and collaborates on research. Critics argue that HRSA focuses more on treatment (via the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program) than prevention and isn't equipped to absorb these duties. There's also talk of a $700 million funding cut to the CDC's HIV division.
Public health experts and LGBTQ+ advocates have pushed back, citing risks to vulnerable populations and the potential reversal of recent progress in reducing HIV rates, especially among youth. Some see the move as part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to restructure the federal government—and to downplay health resources tied to gender identity.
In Laura Ingraham’s latest interview with Donald Trump, the president delivered a typically rambling and grievance-filled performance that offered more spectacle than substance. While the conversation touched on major issues like his recent call with Vladimir Putin, U.S.-Russia-China relations, judicial rulings, and federal agency reforms, Trump’s commentary often lacked clarity, coherence, and factual grounding. He opened with vague descriptions of his two-hour phone call with Putin, claiming it was productive but offering no concrete outcomes beyond generalizations about “guns pointing at each other.” He insisted the war in Ukraine would never have happened under his leadership and downplayed Russia’s responsibility for the conflict. Despite Kremlin statements suggesting otherwise, Trump denied that aid to Ukraine was discussed, raising questions about his credibility and selective transparency.
On geopolitics, Trump returned to an outdated Cold War trope, arguing that Russia and China are "natural enemies" and blaming former president Obama for allegedly forcing them into an alliance—an oversimplified and historically dubious claim. He offered no viable strategy for navigating the current alignment between Moscow and Beijing, instead asserting that the U.S. should be friendly with both, as though diplomacy were that simplistic. When asked about accusations that he aligns more with authoritarian leaders than democratic allies, Trump deflected by insisting he is a nationalist "for the United States," but again, without explaining how that vision balances with global leadership or international law.
His harshest rhetoric was reserved for the judiciary. Trump labeled federal judges “rogue,” “radical,” and “lunatics,” specifically attacking rulings that blocked deportation flights and revived USAID functions. He floated the idea of impeaching a judge for issuing a ruling he didn’t like, which fundamentally misunderstands—or disregards—the principle of judicial independence. Though he claimed he would never defy a court order, he undermined that assurance by repeatedly asserting that certain judges are corrupt and politically motivated, thereby casting doubt on the legitimacy of the courts as a whole. His disdain for oversight extended to government agencies as well, calling USAID a “scam” without offering clear evidence, and framing any judicial resistance to his executive actions as partisan interference rather than lawful checks and balances.
Later in the interview, Trump indulged in conspiratorial speculation, suggesting that recent arson attacks on Teslas were acts of “domestic terrorism” perpetrated by left-wing political operatives. Without evidence, he framed these incidents as proof of persecution against his allies, particularly Elon Musk, whom he praised as a “genius patriot.” Even the return of U.S. astronauts was spun into an anti-Biden narrative, with Trump bizarrely suggesting that the current president had “abandoned” them and that it was his influence that would bring them home. The interview concluded with Trump again asserting the unmatched power of the MAGA movement, claiming it to be the greatest in political history and portraying himself as the only figure capable of restoring American strength and dignity.
The interview revealed little in terms of policy or vision and much about Trump’s continued reliance on personal grievances, performative nationalism, and the erosion of institutional credibility. He portrayed judicial checks, diplomatic complexity, and bureaucratic accountability as obstacles to his authority, not features of a functioning democracy. His approach remains centered on cultivating distrust—of the courts, the media, and even the federal government he once led—while recasting himself as the lone defender of the nation against a vast, conspiratorial opposition.