What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
February 21, 2025 Recap
President Donald Trump addressed Republican and Democratic governors at the Governor's Working Session in the White House with a sprawling, unfocused speech riddled with factual inaccuracies. While he claimed to be actively negotiating to end the war, he provided no substantive details about his peace efforts, instead repeatedly insisting that the conflict would not have occurred under his administration. His comments regarding Ukraine’s negotiating position were dismissive, stating that they “don’t have any cards but play it tough,” trivializing Ukraine’s legitimate security concerns. Meanwhile, he spoke positively about his talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, raising questions about his diplomatic priorities and whether he would pressure Ukraine into an unfavorable settlement.
The speech lacked coherence, as Trump frequently jumped between unrelated topics, including FEMA’s inefficiencies, Social Security fraud, voter ID laws, transgender participation in sports, and the death penalty for drug dealers. No clear structure or logical progression between subjects made the address challenging to follow. His tendency to insert personal grievances and offhanded anecdotes, such as suggesting he should visit Fort Knox to verify the U.S. gold reserves, further distracted from the key issues at hand.
Throughout the speech, Trump made several misleading or outright false claims. Credible evidence does not support his claim that millions of Americans over 150 years old are still on Social Security rolls. He painted a hyperbolic picture of crime and immigration, suggesting that millions of violent criminals are flooding the U.S., an assertion that relies on exaggerated fear rather than actual data. His comments on energy policy were similarly misleading, dismissing wind power as ineffective despite global data proving its efficiency.
Many of the policy proposals he mentioned lacked feasibility or clear implementation strategies. His call to eliminate the Department of Education and return control to states did not address how federal education funding would be managed under such a system. His push for nationwide paper ballots and voter ID laws ignored the legal and logistical hurdles of implementing such changes at the state level. Similarly, his proposed 25% tariff on foreign cars failed to acknowledge the potential economic consequences, such as higher consumer prices and retaliatory trade measures from other countries.
Trump’s tone oscillated between self-congratulation, antagonism, and offhanded humor, which undermined the seriousness of the topics he addressed. He frequently insulted political opponents, made dismissive remarks about Democratic governors, and used divisive rhetoric that reinforced an "us vs. them" mentality rather than encouraging bipartisan cooperation. Additionally, his off-the-cuff humor—such as joking about sending political opponents on a dangerous train ride to Ukraine—detracted from the gravity of the issues at hand. While his supporters may appreciate his unscripted style, his lack of discipline and reliance on exaggeration diminish his credibility as a leader.
President Trump’s memorandum on defending American companies from overseas taxation and regulatory measures adopts a strongly nationalist and protectionist tone, presenting foreign policies as direct attacks on U.S. businesses. While it is true that digital services taxes (DSTs) imposed by several nations disproportionately impact American tech giants, the memorandum frames these policies as outright “plunder” rather than as legitimate attempts by foreign governments to ensure fair taxation of revenue generated within their borders. This oversimplified characterization dismisses the long-standing global concerns about multinational corporations using tax havens and legal loopholes to minimize their tax obligations. Instead of acknowledging these complexities, the memorandum portrays foreign economies as “failed” and dependent on U.S. corporate success, a stance that risks straining diplomatic and economic relations.
The document takes an explicitly retaliatory approach, advocating for tariffs and other economic countermeasures without proposing diplomatic engagement or cooperative solutions. While protecting American companies is a valid goal, the emphasis on unilateral action could exacerbate trade tensions, particularly with European allies. The memorandum instructs U.S. trade officials to investigate foreign taxation policies and consider imposing penalties, but this heavy-handed strategy risks triggering reciprocal actions against American businesses operating abroad. Furthermore, by rejecting international tax frameworks such as those proposed by the OECD, the administration isolates the U.S. from global efforts to create fair and transparent tax structures for digital commerce.
Another contradiction in the memorandum lies in its argument for American sovereignty while simultaneously seeking to influence foreign regulatory decisions. It criticizes policies that require American streaming services to fund local productions, impose cross-border data restrictions, or regulate digital content. Yet, it also calls for measures to ensure foreign governments do not undermine U.S. companies’ competitiveness. This selective application of sovereignty raises concerns about whether the administration genuinely defends fair competition or seeks to protect U.S. corporate dominance in the digital space. Moreover, its resistance to global digital regulations ignores that many of these policies stem from growing international concerns over privacy, data security, and consumer protection rather than being purely anti-American.
The memorandum’s broad and vague directives, such as instructing U.S. trade officials to investigate whether foreign governments are incentivizing American tech products in ways that “undermine freedom of speech,” reflect a broader ideological agenda rather than a focused economic strategy. While it is true that some international regulations may favor domestic companies over foreign competitors, treating all foreign regulatory actions as hostile or unfair is a flawed approach. The administration’s push for a permanent moratorium on customs duties for electronic transmissions further underscores its one-sided stance, as it demands concessions from other countries without offering reciprocal policy adjustments.
The memorandum risks economic fallout and diplomatic tensions because it attempts to shield American businesses from foreign taxation and regulations. If enacted as written, its aggressive trade policies could provoke retaliatory measures, increase costs for American companies operating internationally, and weaken global partnerships.
President Trump issued a memorandum titled “America First Investment Policy,” which outlines a strong stance on economic sovereignty and national security, emphasizing the need to restrict foreign adversarial investment while encouraging investment from allied nations. The document effectively frames economic security as an extension of national security, highlighting concerns over China’s aggressive acquisition of American intellectual property, technology, and strategic assets. The proposal to implement an expedited “fast-track” system for allied investment while tightening restrictions on adversarial actors attempts to balance economic openness with protective measures. Additionally, using existing regulatory structures, such as the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), ensures that these policies can be implemented within an established legal framework rather than creating an entirely new bureaucratic structure.
However, despite its strong rhetoric, the memorandum presents several critical weaknesses in execution, coherence, and potential unintended consequences. One of its key shortcomings is its overly simplistic characterization of China’s investment activities, treating all Chinese involvement in the U.S. economy as a uniform threat. While there are legitimate national security concerns regarding Chinese investments in critical industries, not all Chinese investments pose risks, and a blanket restriction could stifle beneficial business relationships. Furthermore, the proposed suspension or termination of the 1984 U.S.-China tax treaty and reconsidering China’s World Trade Organization (WTO) status suggest a potential full-scale economic decoupling. While this might align with protectionist policies, it risks severe economic retaliation, supply chain disruptions, and instability in U.S. industries that rely on trade with China.
Another major flaw in the memorandum is the lack of specific criteria for investment restrictions. The document vaguely refers to “PRC-affiliated persons” without offering clear, measurable guidelines for what constitutes an adversarial investment. This vagueness could lead to arbitrary enforcement, excessive bureaucratic red tape, and a chilling effect on legitimate foreign investors who may fear being caught in overly broad regulatory measures. The implementation mechanism appears fragmented, relying on multiple federal agencies—including the Treasury, State, Commerce, Defense, and Intelligence agencies—without a clear coordination strategy. This approach may lead to inconsistent enforcement, legal challenges, and administrative inefficiencies that weaken the policy’s effectiveness. While the memorandum seeks to eliminate “open-ended” mitigation agreements to reduce regulatory complexity, it risks removing necessary safeguards that prevent harmful foreign acquisitions.
Beyond these implementation concerns, the memorandum also raises serious economic and diplomatic risks. The strong rhetoric against passive investment in foreign adversary companies and the call for increased regulatory scrutiny may create investor uncertainty, even among U.S. allies. The lack of precise guidelines for “restricted” industries and the potential for politically driven enforcement could discourage much-needed investment, slowing economic growth rather than strengthening it. Additionally, while the memorandum acknowledges the importance of allied investment, it does not provide a detailed plan to deepen cooperation with partner nations. Strengthening investment partnerships through trade agreements, joint ventures, and technology-sharing initiatives would have provided a more constructive counterbalance to China’s global investment strategies.
The memorandum also misses an opportunity to present a robust domestic investment strategy. While it focuses on restricting foreign investment, it fails to outline measures to stimulate U.S. technological innovation and industrial self-sufficiency. A truly “America First” approach should include policies that encourage domestic research and development, infrastructure investment, and manufacturing growth rather than relying primarily on restrictive measures against foreign actors. Moreover, the memorandum does not adequately address American corporations' role in advancing Chinese technological development through joint ventures, supply chains, and outsourcing.
Vague criteria, economic risks, and a lack of proactive domestic policy hinder President Trump’s “America First Investment Policy” memorandum. The broad and uncompromising approach may lead to unintended consequences, including trade retaliation, investor uncertainty, and bureaucratic inefficiencies.
The Trump administration initially ordered legal groups assisting unaccompanied migrant children to halt their services but reversed the decision days later. The Acacia Center for Justice, which provides legal representation and education to tens of thousands of children under a $200 million contract, received a notice from the Department of Interior stating that all activities could resume. The reversal followed public outcry, with 15,000 letters sent to Congress demanding the program’s continuation.
Despite the reinstatement, concerns remain about future government decisions, as the contract’s renewal is reviewed annually, with a deadline in March. Advocates warn that suspending these services would leave vulnerable children without legal protection in deportation proceedings. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2008 mandates legal facilitation for unaccompanied minors but does not guarantee them lawyers. Immigration rights organizations urge the government to continue funding the program to protect children's due process rights.
A federal judge, Carl Nichols, ruled to dissolve a temporary restraining order that had blocked the Trump administration from placing thousands of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) employees on administrative leave. In a 26-page order, Nichols determined that unions representing foreign service officers failed to prove that the personnel changes would cause "irreparable harm."
Nichols, a Trump appointee, sided with administration official Pete Morocco, who argued that career USAID officers had ignored the administration’s "pencils down" directive to review foreign aid programs. The judge found that the government had the authority to conduct such reviews and suspend employees.
Initially, Nichols had halted the effort due to concerns that overseas USAID employees losing access to agency systems could face safety risks. However, after reviewing government submissions, he concluded that the risk was minimal. As a result, the ruling allows the Trump administration to proceed with placing nearly all USAID employees—except 611 direct hires—on administrative leave.
The Associated Press (AP) has filed a lawsuit against three Trump administration officials—White House Chief of Staff Susan Wiles, Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich, and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt—alleging that the White House is unconstitutionally restricting its journalists’ access to presidential events. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., challenges what the AP calls government retaliation over its refusal to adopt Trump’s renaming of the “Gulf of Mexico” to the “Gulf of America.”
The AP argues that the restrictions violate the First Amendment’s press freedom and free speech protections. The Trump administration has barred AP journalists from attending press events at the White House and Mar-a-Lago and traveling on Air Force One, citing the AP’s refusal to use the president’s preferred terminology.
In response, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the administration’s position, asserting their commitment to “truth and accuracy.” Meanwhile, the White House Correspondents Association, backed by about 40 news organizations—including Fox News and Newsmax—has urged the administration to reverse the ban.
The AP’s lawsuit follows failed attempts to negotiate with the administration, including a visit by AP executive Julie Pace to Florida to discuss the issue with Wiles. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee.
The Trump administration is replacing Caleb Vitello, the acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), amid concerns over the number of deportations. Vitello has been reassigned to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and will now oversee field and enforcement operations.
The move aligns with the administration’s push to increase deportations and crack down on immigration, which has been a major policy focus since Trump took office. The administration has taken steps such as declaring a national emergency at the southern border, expanding deportation criteria, and involving the military in border operations.
Despite these efforts, DHS data shows that deportations in Trump’s first month (38,000) were lower than the monthly average under Biden’s final year (57,000). The administration has faced questions about whether deportation rates are meeting expectations. Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller emphasized that all available national resources would be used to remove undocumented immigrants swiftly.
The Trump administration has reversed its decision to cut thousands of seasonal jobs at the National Park Service (NPS) following public outcry and media pressure. Initially, seasonal workers—who handle essential park duties such as collecting entrance fees and maintaining trails—were informed that their job offers for 2025 had been rescinded. However, a new memo from the Department of the Interior allows the NPS to hire 7,700 seasonal employees, up from the usual 6,300.
This reversal contrasts with the broader government-wide hiring freeze and mass firings of federal employees under Trump's administration, which included dismissing about 1,000 permanent NPS workers last week. With fewer job protections, these probationary employees were part of a larger federal workforce purge.
The job cuts sparked widespread outrage, with park employees and outdoor enthusiasts rallying on social media and lobbying politicians to restore funding. Yosemite maintenance worker Olek Chmura became an unexpected spokesperson after sharing his frustration online, drawing national and international media attention. His story resonated with liberals and conservatives, some of whom expressed regret over supporting these job cuts.
Despite the seasonal hiring reprieve, uncertainty remains for permanent staff, and advocates continue to push for the complete restoration of all park service positions. Park supervisors, wary of further administrative reversals, are rushing to rehire seasonal workers.
President Trump announced the removal of Gen. C.Q. Brown as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, an unprecedented move early in a four-year term. He nominated recently retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Dan "Razin" Caine as Brown's successor. Trump praised Brown's service but did not provide a reason for his removal.
While Caine has a notable record as an F-16 pilot and national security expert, his nomination is framed within Trump’s broader narrative of purging military officials he deems insufficiently committed to his vision. This includes those associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, including the removal of Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti and several other top Pentagon officials, which Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have openly criticized.
Trump’s announcement that Hegseth will solicit nominations to replace several other top Pentagon officials signals a sweeping overhaul of military leadership based on ideological litmus tests rather than strategic necessity. This could undermine the nonpartisan integrity of the armed forces, making them more susceptible to political influence rather than remaining a professional institution dedicated to national defense.