What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
May 23, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump's Truth Social post regarding Apple and iPhone manufacturing reveals a mixture of protectionist economic rhetoric, policy overreach, and grammatical carelessness. The post claims that Trump "long ago informed" Apple CEO Tim Cook that iPhones sold in the United States should be manufactured domestically—a demand that, if made, would represent an extraordinary intrusion into corporate decision-making and global supply chains. The assertion that Apple "must" manufacture in the U.S. or face a blanket 25% tariff lacks legal grounding and disregards established trade law, as such tariffs would likely require congressional approval or formal executive action under specific trade statutes, not a social media declaration. Additionally, the post’s tone is imperious and inconsistent with the norms of diplomatic corporate engagement, implying unilateral command rather than negotiation or incentive-based policy. From a stylistic standpoint, the use of “iPhone’s” instead of “iPhones,” and the typo “Thank your” instead of “Thank you,” further undermine the message’s seriousness. Overall, the post combines populist appeal with flawed policy assumptions and careless presentation, which together detract from its credibility and coherence.
In another Truth Social post, Donald Trump called for a sweeping 50% tariff on the European Union (EU), which is economically incendiary, diplomatically provocative, and factually misleading. His characterization of the EU as an entity “formed for the primary purpose of taking advantage of the United States on trade” is historically and strategically inaccurate. The EU was created to promote peace, economic integration, and political stability among European nations in the aftermath of World War II, not to undermine U.S. trade. Trump’s broad-brush condemnation of European trade practices—including “Monetary Manipulations” and “unjustified lawsuits against American companies”—lacks specific evidence and ignores the fact that trade disputes are routinely addressed through established legal channels, including the World Trade Organization, in which the U.S. actively participates.
The proposed blanket 50% tariff is disproportionate and would almost certainly violate international trade agreements, sparking retaliatory tariffs that could escalate into a full-blown trade war. This would harm not only European exporters but also American businesses and consumers who rely on European goods or components. Additionally, Trump’s claim of a $250 billion trade deficit with the EU appears to exaggerate the actual figure, which has historically hovered around $150-200 billion annually, not a trivial amount, but far less than asserted. His framing also misrepresents trade deficits as inherently negative, ignoring the economic benefits of imports and the role of services and investment flows in the broader U.S.–EU economic relationship. Rather than fostering productive negotiation, this rhetoric fuels antagonism and economic nationalism, ultimately undermining the stability of a vital alliance and one of the world's largest trading relationships.
The event in which Donald Trump signed multiple executive orders related to nuclear energy was positioned as a major policy rollout, yet it unfolded more as a loosely structured rally than a formal governmental proceeding. The administration presented the policy framework as a transformative push to revitalize America’s nuclear industry by reducing regulatory barriers, promoting modular reactor technology, increasing domestic fuel production, and restoring what they called “gold standard science” to federal decision-making. The participation of nuclear executives, defense officials, and energy entrepreneurs gave the event the veneer of institutional seriousness. However, the delivery quickly devolved into a chaotic mixture of policy talk, off-topic digressions, and self-congratulatory rhetoric.
Substantively, the executive orders aim to address decades-long stagnation in U.S. nuclear development. Officials cited overregulation and permitting delays as primary culprits, pointing to the fact that only two new commercial reactors have come online since 1978. By attempting to streamline approvals and testing and invoking the Defense Production Act to stimulate domestic fuel enrichment, the Trump administration seeks to reposition nuclear power as central to national security and technological competitiveness, especially in the context of artificial intelligence infrastructure. Industry leaders reinforced these aims by pointing to growing demand from hyperscalers and private investment in modular reactor design. Yet the policy presentation was undercut by a lack of detailed explanations, vague promises of rapid implementation and cost discipline, and little clarity on how environmental, safety, and public input concerns would be balanced.
Structurally, the event lacked coherence. Trump interrupted speakers mid-sentence, veered into unrelated topics—such as European trade, tariffs on Apple, and immigration policy—and often failed to complete his own thoughts. Transitions between subjects were jarring, with nuclear energy reform inexplicably segueing into criticisms of Harvard University and the European Union. The lack of moderation and continuity made it difficult to track the core policy aims and undermined the gravity of the national security and energy concerns being addressed.
Tonally, the event was erratic. Trump’s glib treatment of nuclear safety and proliferation risks—dismissing concerns with anecdotes about automatic shutoff systems and references to his “nuclear person” uncle—diminished the seriousness of the discussion. The tone also swung into condescension and performative antagonism, particularly in Trump’s comments about regulators, elite academic institutions, and foreign governments. This alienates potential partners in implementation and sends a troubling message about the administration’s willingness to politicize energy and science policy.
Politically, the event was loaded with ideological signaling. Trump framed the nuclear initiative as a repudiation of both bureaucratic inertia and globalist institutions. His critiques of the EU, his threats to Apple and foreign carmakers, and his commentary on higher education all served to amplify his familiar themes of economic nationalism, anti-elitism, and institutional mistrust. While this might galvanize political support from certain constituencies, it also risks politicizing a policy domain—nuclear energy—that demands bipartisan cooperation, long-term investment, and scientific integrity.
While the executive orders themselves reflect a significant shift in federal nuclear policy, the event intended to showcase them failed to maintain coherence, professionalism, or policy discipline. The initiative’s success will depend not on the theatrics of its unveiling but on whether it can withstand the scrutiny of regulators, courts, international partners, and the American public. The administration’s decision to couch such a critical initiative in campaign-style theatrics and grievance-driven messaging may ultimately undermine the credibility and implementation of what could otherwise be a consequential energy reform agenda.
The four executive orders signed by President Donald Trump—“Restoring Gold Standard Science,” “Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy,” and “Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base”—claim to enhance scientific integrity and energy innovation but instead reflect a pattern of politicized overreach, deregulation, and centralized control that undermines their stated goals.
Restoring Gold Standard Science: While this order presents itself as a defense of scientific rigor and public trust, it is framed with partisan intent. It disproportionately targets Biden-era policies, notably criticizing COVID-19 school guidance and climate modeling without acknowledging scientific consensus. It revokes diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives under the pretense that they compromise scientific integrity, falsely equating inclusivity with bias. Its definition of “gold standard science” is narrow, favoring Popperian falsifiability over the methodological diversity of modern research. Power is concentrated in the White House’s OSTP and OMB, raising fears of politicized science enforcement, while the mechanisms for determining misconduct are vague and opaque, potentially stifling dissent and transparency.
Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at DOE: This order promotes rapid deployment of advanced nuclear technologies by redefining DOE-operated reactors as exempt from Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) oversight. Framing current stagnation as the result of “overregulation,” it minimizes market and technical realities and circumvents environmental safeguards under NEPA. The order's timeline for reactor deployment is unrealistically short, prioritizing political optics over safety. Authority is centralized under the Secretary of Energy with little external accountability, risking politically driven project approvals. The order masks deregulation as innovation and sidelines independent review, increasing the potential for unsafe or corrupt practices.
Ordering the Reform of the NRC: This order seeks to remake the NRC from an independent safety regulator into a commercialization facilitator. It attacks the NRC’s use of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model of radiation risk, replacing it with executive fiat rather than scientific consensus. It imposes arbitrary fee caps and deadlines, slashes expert bodies like the ACRS, and reduces public and environmental input by streamlining hearings and NEPA reviews. It relies on dubious claims, such as foreign power outages, to justify its urgency. The inclusion of the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) raises legal and institutional legitimacy concerns. Its ambitious goal to quadruple U.S. nuclear capacity by 2050 is implausible given unresolved issues like waste storage and labor shortages.
Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base: Lays out an expansive plan to revive America’s nuclear energy sector, framing it as essential to national security, energy independence, and global technological dominance. It proposes aggressive timelines for building new reactors, restarting fuel production, expanding uranium enrichment, and revitalizing the domestic workforce, while invoking the Defense Production Act to coordinate with industry. However, the order’s sweeping ambitions often outpace practical and fiscal realities. Its reliance on Cold War–style rhetoric and focus on industrial dominance glosses over complex challenges such as public skepticism, environmental risk, waste management, and market economics. The plan to reprocess plutonium and produce HEU blurs the lines between civilian and defense priorities, raising nonproliferation concerns. While the workforce development provisions are a bright spot, the order’s overall tone is more ideological than pragmatic. Without broader integration into climate and energy transition strategies, it risks becoming more of a political statement than a sustainable policy framework.
These orders prioritize speed, ideological control, and deregulation over public safety, environmental stewardship, and scientific independence. Though couched in the language of reform and innovation, they collectively represent a troubling shift toward executive overreach, politicization of science, and institutional weakening that threatens to erode trust in both scientific and regulatory processes.
Source: White House Briefing Room
Vice President J.D. Vance’s commencement address to the U.S. Naval Academy’s Class of 2025 was an ambitious attempt to blend ceremonial celebration with an extended foreign policy lecture, marked by a populist-nationalist framing of military service and a sharp critique of previous American strategic priorities. While the speech opened warmly and featured several genuinely respectful nods to the graduates, their families, and the institution’s traditions, it ultimately veered into a dense and ideologically charged articulation of the Trump administration’s military doctrine—one that risked politicizing what is traditionally a unifying and nonpartisan moment.
The speech’s tone was uneven. Vance was at his best when emphasizing personal gratitude, honoring military families, and encouraging humility and moral responsibility among new officers. His reflections on Memorial Day and the legacy of fallen graduates, such as Major Megan McClung, were poignant and well-placed. These moments grounded the speech in the shared values of service, sacrifice, and honor. However, these insights were frequently overshadowed by a lengthy, often disjointed policy exposition that read less like a graduation address and more like a campaign manifesto or national security white paper.
Vance spent much of his speech laying out the Trump administration’s break from post–Cold War American foreign policy, criticizing decades of “nation-building” and “soft power” strategies while arguing for a return to “realism” and narrowly defined national interest. While this critique may resonate with some, its delivery during a commencement speech felt misplaced and overly partisan. By repeatedly referencing President Trump, denouncing prior military engagements as strategic failures, and emphasizing recent Trump-led diplomatic ventures and military actions, Vance positioned the administration as both corrective force and moral compass—an unusual focus for a military commissioning ceremony that traditionally seeks to unite rather than divide.
Finally, while the emphasis on innovation, modernization, and preparing officers for the evolving landscape of 21st-century warfare was appropriate, Vance’s message at times relied too heavily on technological determinism. His discussion of hypersonics, drones, and cyberwarfare lacked a more nuanced acknowledgment of ethical dilemmas, civilian oversight, and multilateral coordination that such advancements require. The speech also overlooked the importance of diplomacy and non-military tools of influence—an ironic omission given his broader criticism of U.S. overreach.
Vice President Vance’s address contained flashes of sincerity and insight, particularly when discussing leadership and sacrifice. However, it faltered under the weight of excessive policy advocacy and partisanship. In using the platform to deliver an ideological tract rather than a unifying and reflective charge to the graduating class, he missed an opportunity to fully honor the gravity, pride, and collective spirit of the occasion.
A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration's effort to strip Harvard University of its ability to enroll international students, following a lawsuit from Harvard that argued the move was unconstitutional and would harm its student body of over 7,000 visa holders. Had it gone forward, the administration's action would have forced thousands of students to transfer or risk deportation. President Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem framed the move as a crackdown on universities that resist federal demands, accusing Harvard of withholding information and enabling antisemitism. Noem warned other universities to comply or face similar consequences. The judge’s ruling prevents the immediate revocation of Harvard’s Student Exchange Visitor Program Certification. Harvard and analysts stressed that international students are vital for both academic and financial reasons, as many pay full tuition. The Department of Homeland Security had threatened to restore Harvard’s certification only if it turned over student records within 72 hours. The White House criticized the judicial block, asserting that the administration has full authority over immigration and national security policy.
A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore medical articles that were removed from a government-run patient safety website because they included references to transgender individuals. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled that the removal of these articles from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Patient Safety Network (PSNet) violated the First Amendment, constituting viewpoint discrimination. The articles, authored by Harvard-affiliated doctors Gordon Schiff and Celeste Royce, addressed topics like suicide risk and endometriosis and included brief mentions of transgender patients.
The removal followed an executive order signed by President Trump on January 20, mandating the elimination of all government content that promotes "gender ideology" and declaring that "women are biologically female, and men are biologically male." Sorokin’s ruling, issued in Boston, directed the administration not only to restore the doctors’ articles but also all other privately authored content removed under the order's implementation. The ACLU of Massachusetts, representing the doctors, hailed the decision as a victory for free speech and public health. The Department of Health and Human Services declined to comment.
Of all the sites I visit, the analysis and the comprehensiveness of these almost daily 'reports' are the best I've ever had the pleasure of reading. Frankly, truly phenomenal analysis and well-written.
Why oh why is no one writing about the obvious meltdown of Trump’s already tenuous mental health? He can’t maintain a coherent narrative to its conclusion. Many of his lies are pure repetition, many are hateful manipulations, yet many of them are the result of a broken mind not capable of discerning reality from fantasy.
The media spends obscene amounts of time and energy obsessing over Joe Biden’s age and health. Breaking News: Biden no longer holds the nuclear codes. Trump is a clear and present danger. Please do your jobs and focus on the real problem here!!