What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
Weekend Recap: April 12th and 13th, 2025
Donald Trump issued a fiery, nationalistic, and economically reductive statement on Truth Social. It offered a populist rallying cry disguised as trade policy while misrepresenting both international economics and recent developments in U.S. tariff strategy.
The post conflated longstanding concerns about trade imbalances with retaliatory protectionism, positioning tariffs as both punishment and panacea. The language—“nobody is getting off the hook,” “hostile trading nations,” and “held hostage”—was purposefully combative and framed trade as a zero-sum battlefield. However, Trump glossed over the complexities of global supply chains and ignored the broader consequences of such tariffs, especially the fact that they often functioned as hidden taxes on American businesses and consumers. The claim that “those days are over” regarding trade imbalances suggested an unrealistic belief that protectionist policies alone could reset global economic dynamics without causing domestic inflation, supply disruptions, or international backlash.
Trump also leaned heavily on the vague threat of “National Security Tariff Investigations” into semiconductors and the broader electronics supply chain, signaling potential future action without offering specifics. This kind of rhetoric stirred patriotic sentiment and economic fear, yet it undermined investor confidence and created instability in sectors critical to both consumer markets and national defense. His mention of the “Fentanyl Tariffs” being “re-bucketed” was obscure and misleading; the lack of detail obscured whether this change was substantive or merely bureaucratic reclassification, while the reference to fentanyl—a deadly opioid—appeared more political than economic, designed to inflame rather than inform.
His boast that tax and regulatory cuts would spark a “Golden Age of America” was overly simplistic and ungrounded in current economic data. It ignored that major tax cuts could contribute to deficits and inflation without guaranteeing the kind of manufacturing renaissance he promised. His binary framing—America as either exploited or dominant—left no room for realistic cooperation, mutual economic benefit, or sustainable diplomacy. Most notably, the post continued Trump’s habit of personalizing policy around emotional nationalism, where perceived disrespect from foreign nations was treated as justification for sweeping economic action.
The post was not a coherent policy statement—it was a nationalist sales pitch wrapped in economic grievance, one that distorted the mechanics of trade, omitted inconvenient consequences, and played to populist sentiment over strategic substance.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick appeared on ABC’s “This Week” with Jonathan Karl in a revealing display of the Trump administration’s second-term trade and industrial policy rhetoric—one that is aggressive, circular, and rife with contradictions. Lutnick’s core message was that recently announced exemptions for consumer electronics like smartphones and laptops from reciprocal tariffs were not really exemptions at all, but rather reclassifications. According to him, these goods are being repositioned under forthcoming “sectoral” tariffs aimed at semiconductors and pharmaceuticals. The administration’s messaging here is intentionally murky: what appears to be a policy softening is reframed as a tactical regrouping in a broader protectionist campaign.
Lutnick repeatedly framed these policies as vital for national security, insisting that America must no longer depend on China or Southeast Asia for essential goods—particularly semiconductors, medicine, and steel. However, the Secretary struggled to reconcile the administration’s nationalist reshoring goals with real-world supply chain realities. When pressed on the immediate impact of such policies—namely, rising consumer prices and strained global supply chains—he waved off concerns by touting idealized examples, like Panasonic’s factory in Kansas, without acknowledging the timeline, scale, or capital required to meaningfully displace China’s industrial dominance.
Karl pushed back effectively at several points, particularly on constitutional grounds, noting that Article I, Section 8 vests tariff authority in Congress—not the executive branch. Lutnick’s defense relied on the vague invocation of national security exemptions and emergency statutes yet failed to explain how the administration’s sweeping tariff regime aligns with the narrow scope of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). His argument was more political than legal, sidestepping the growing number of court challenges to these executive maneuvers.
The exchange also veered into diplomatic controversy when Karl asked about Vice President J.D. Vance’s inflammatory remarks calling Chinese citizens “peasants.” Lutnick deflected, claiming the language merely illustrated how China’s state-sponsored capitalism undercuts American industry. Yet he did not condemn the pejorative phrasing, a telling omission that risks further inflaming tensions with China.
The interview showcased the administration’s deeply nationalistic trade posture, built on industrial nostalgia, legal overreach, and strategic ambiguity. Lutnick operated more as a loyalist cheerleader than a policy technocrat, offering boosterish optimism rather than economic realism. While he confidently claimed that Trump “knows how to play this game,” the interview itself suggested otherwise—highlighting a chaotic and poorly articulated trade policy that may alienate allies, provoke legal rebuke, and leave American consumers footing the bill.
White House trade adviser Peter Navarro’s interview with Kristen Welker on NBC’s Meet the Press was a chaotic, rambling defense of an incoherent tariff policy that continues to shift under President Trump’s second-term trade doctrine. While Navarro attempted to frame the administration's actions as part of a deliberate and strategic “America First” economic realignment, his answers revealed the policy's reactive nature, internal contradictions, and a troubling lack of economic literacy.
Navarro opened by claiming that the president’s evolving tariff decisions, including the recent pause and exclusion of electronics like smartphones, were all part of a carefully orchestrated plan to pressure foreign governments into trade negotiations. However, this contradicts both Trump’s previous statements—where he pledged no exclusions—and the administration’s own rhetoric about being tough on national security-linked sectors like semiconductors. Navarro’s repeated invocation of non-tariff barriers, “back taxes,” and “currency manipulation” lacked specificity, and his framing of $18 trillion in cumulative deficits as “transferred wealth” was misleading and overly simplistic.
His attempt to recast exemptions as merely tactical “investigations” or “delays” further undermined his claim that the administration was consistent. When pressed on how American consumers could make business decisions in the face of such unpredictability, Navarro dodged by blaming foreign “cheating” rather than offering a rationale for the administration’s internal inconsistency. At times, his explanation devolved into conspiratorial overstatement, such as suggesting that countries like Australia deliberately block U.S. pork or that tariff-funded tax cuts would be "debt neutral" and simultaneously fight both inflation and recession—a magical combination unsupported by mainstream economic analysis.
Navarro also touted a forthcoming tax cut “before August” that would allegedly be financed entirely by tariff revenue, a claim that is not only fiscally dubious but also reflects a basic misunderstanding of how tariffs operate. Tariffs are taxes paid by importers (usually American companies), not foreign governments, ultimately raising costs for U.S. consumers and businesses.
When confronted with the fact that markets dropped and consumer confidence plummeted following Trump’s tariff announcements, Navarro dismissed this by cherry-picking a single week of positive market performance. He also made exaggerated geopolitical claims—blaming China for “killing over a million Americans” with fentanyl—and promoted Trump’s personal relationships with authoritarian leaders as evidence of strategic success.
The segment concluded with Navarro awkwardly brushing off questions about being sidelined, offering glib reassurance that his appearance on the show somehow proved his continued relevance.
The interview confirmed that Trump’s trade team remains erratic, improvisational, and driven more by grievance and optics than by coherent strategy. Navarro’s inability to give clear metrics, timelines, or evidence of economic benefit underscored the hollowness of the administration’s protectionist agenda. Rather than calming markets or reassuring businesses, this performance likely added to the uncertainty surrounding U.S. trade policy.
Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, appeared on CNN’s State Of The Union with Jake Tapper and attempted to present President Trump’s tariff policy as a coherent and strategic plan aimed at safeguarding national security and revitalizing domestic manufacturing. However, the conversation reveals deep contradictions, inconsistencies, and rhetorical overreach that undermine the administration’s economic competence and long-term planning narrative.
From the outset, Hassett downplays significant financial volatility—trillions lost in global stock value, plunging consumer confidence, and a weakening dollar—as if these are expected and controlled outcomes. He characterizes them not as signs of instability but as symptoms of a bold two-minute offense. This metaphor trivializes the serious economic uncertainty felt by investors and small businesses. By framing the situation as an aggressive but necessary blitz of policy action, Hassett avoids grappling with the destabilizing effects of inconsistent messaging, sudden policy reversals, and ad hoc tariff carveouts.
The invocation of “Section 232” national security tariffs is a central justification for the policy, with Hassett likening them to ensuring the domestic production of cannonballs during wartime. But this analogy quickly breaks down. His explanation blurs the line between legitimate national security concerns and protectionist overreach, particularly when exemptions are made for precisely the types of products (electronics, semiconductors) that should be critical in a conflict scenario. Hassett insists these exemptions are temporary and tied to upcoming 232 determinations, yet he fails to convincingly address why they were granted preemptively—especially given the administration’s repeated insistence that there would be “no exclusions.”
More damning is the contradiction between Hassett’s assurances and the statements made just days earlier by other senior officials, including Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and USTR Jameson Greer. The administration had firmly declared no exemptions would be allowed, only to suddenly pause most tariffs and issue carveouts. Hassett claims this was always part of the plan, but the abrupt shift suggests improvisation under market pressure, not long-term strategy. This inconsistency feeds the perception voiced by small business owners that economic policy is being conducted on a whim, not through a predictable rules-based framework.
When challenged on the practicality of negotiating new trade deals with over 100 countries in a matter of months—when USMCA took over a year—Hassett glosses over the logistical and diplomatic hurdles. He cites momentum and “deals in principle” without explaining how meaningful or enforceable such agreements would be. His confidence in fast-track deals appears more rooted in political theater than substance.
Perhaps most striking is Hassett’s attempt to dismiss recession fears by selectively invoking “soft” versus “hard” data. While he touts pre-policy implementation job numbers as evidence of strength, he ignores the forward-looking nature of economic forecasts, especially when markets are reacting to unexpected policy shifts. The assertion that new tariffs will inevitably lead to wage growth and a renaissance in American manufacturing is speculative at best and contradicted by past evidence, including the uneven results of Trump’s first-term tariffs.
Hassett’s performance is emblematic of the broader problem with Trump’s second-term economic policy: a reactive, often contradictory approach framed as strategic nationalism. While the administration insists on coherence, its communication is riddled with mixed signals, premature exemptions, and rushed justifications. Rather than projecting confidence, Hassett’s rationalizations highlight the fragility and improvisational nature of the administration’s tariff agenda—leaving businesses, investors, and government officials struggling to decipher what comes next.
Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins spoke to Fox News Sunday host Shannon Bream, offering a comprehensive, though highly politicized, defense of the Trump administration’s tariff and agriculture policies. It was framed as a reassurance tour for an increasingly anxious rural constituency—farmers facing rising input costs, shrinking export markets, and looming cuts to food assistance programs. While Rollins was polished and energetic in her delivery, her remarks were riddled with evasions, selective context, and rhetorical deflections that prioritized political messaging over substantive clarity.
On tariffs, Rollins repeated the administration’s core justification: that Trump’s trade wars are about restoring “fairness” to global trade, with farmers supposedly standing to benefit from retaliatory alignment. She cited exaggerated or decontextualized foreign tariffs—such as Japan’s 700% tariff on U.S. rice—without acknowledging the highly limited scope or exceptions tied to such numbers, nor that retaliatory tariffs from China and others have severely impacted U.S. exports. Her claim that American farmers had been treated “egregiously” by global markets oversimplified decades of complex trade relationships that have included both protectionist disadvantages and preferential access.
More troubling, Rollins brushed aside immediate economic pain as a mere phase of “uncertainty,” implying that the eventual reward would be “unprecedented prosperity.” This aspirational language glossed over real-world consequences. Her dismissal of farmer hardship and input inflation ignored the deeply reported frustrations among producers who don’t want subsidies—they want viable markets. While she pledged that aid would be available if necessary, she contradicted reports of depleted USDA funds by blaming the Biden administration’s spending despite offering no budgetary breakdowns or accountability for current allocations.
On the issue of food program cuts, Rollins delivered a starkly partisan rebuke of critics. Her labeling of Rep. Pat Ryan’s statement as “fake news” was not backed by clarification of the impact of the USDA’s clawback of unused pandemic-era funds. While she claimed no child would go hungry, she failed to explain how food banks and school programs dependent on those funds would be shielded from disruption. Her suggestion that states “couldn’t figure out how to spend the money” came off as dismissive and unconvincing, especially given growing food insecurity metrics.
When pressed on ethanol subsidies and domestic fuel production, Rollins appeared defensive about her prior affiliations with think tanks critical of ethanol. Her effort to distance herself from those earlier views was muddled and unpersuasive, though she did reaffirm the Trump administration’s strong support for E15 and biofuel infrastructure expansion. Her touting of grant programs and travel to Heartland states echoed a campaign-like approach rather than a policy-oriented one, more concerned with public perception than resolving the regulatory roadblocks that continue to hinder year-round ethanol sales.
In closing, Rollins again pivoted to grocery prices and border security—two unrelated issues—suggesting a broader strategy of tying food affordability to immigration enforcement. Her reference to dropping egg prices by 60% lacked context, particularly in how that relief is being distributed across different regions and income levels.
The interview served more as political theater than honest policy discussion. Secretary Rollins projected loyalty to Trump’s economic nationalism while minimizing the damage experienced by farmers, food assistance recipients, and biofuel producers. Her rhetoric relied heavily on future promises, scapegoating past administrations, and reinterpreting fiscal realities—leaving critical questions unanswered and farmer skepticism unresolved.
The Trump administration argued in court filings that it was not obligated to assist in the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from a prison in El Salvador despite a Supreme Court ruling that ordered the government to "facilitate" his return to the U.S. The administration claimed the directive only required them to remove domestic barriers, not to intervene abroad. Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident with a U.S. work permit since 2019, was wrongly deported in March in violation of a court order. Although a federal judge ordered his return and the Supreme Court upheld that decision, administration officials now claim the deportation order is moot due to his alleged MS-13 gang affiliation, citing the group’s designation as a foreign terrorist organization. The State Department confirmed that Abrego Garcia is being held in a terrorism confinement center in El Salvador. As Trump prepares to meet Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, administration lawyers cautioned against further inquiries into Abrego Garcia’s case, arguing that such efforts could disrupt sensitive diplomatic negotiations.
On Truth Social, Donald Trump posted a highly charged and conspiratorial attack on the media, specifically targeting 60 Minutes, CBS, and its parent company, Paramount. It exemplified Donald Trump’s characteristic rhetorical style, marked by emotionally loaded language, sweeping accusations, and disjointed grievances presented without evidence. The claim that 60 Minutes is being sued for “Billions of Dollars” due to an interview with Kamala Harris before the November presidential election is both legally dubious and factually incoherent. The assertion that the network “did everything possible to illegally elect Kamala” or that they fraudulently altered her interview answers is unsubstantiated and veers into conspiracy theory.
The post is riddled with hyperbole and lacks logical cohesion, jumping from Ukraine to Greenland to FCC regulations without providing any connective rationale. The reference to the Ukraine war being caused by the 2020 election outcome is an attempt to elevate Trump’s own political importance while deflecting responsibility and ignoring the complex geopolitical factors at play. Grammatical confusion, such as the sentence structure around “if I were President and the other story having to do with Greenland,” detracts from the message’s clarity and further underscores its lack of discipline.
Perhaps most troubling is the authoritarian undertone in the demand that the FCC revoke CBS’s license and impose “maximum fines and punishment.” Such a call represents a direct attack on press freedom and attempts to weaponize regulatory power against political criticism. Rather than offering a reasoned rebuttal or engaging in open dialogue, Trump frames the media as a criminal enterprise engaged in election interference and national sabotage. The invocation of Brendan Carr and the FCC as potential enforcers of punitive action against journalists sets a dangerous precedent and reflects an alarming disregard for the independence of oversight institutions in a democracy.
The statement reads more like a public tantrum than a coherent legal or political argument. It reinforces Trump’s familiar narrative of victimhood and omnipotence, blaming global conflict and domestic dissent on his political opponents and critical press. However, it lacks the credibility, structure, and evidence to persuade anyone outside his most loyal base. Instead, it exemplifies the perils of demagogic rhetoric in a democratic society and underscores the ongoing tension between Trump’s political ambitions and the foundational norms of a free press and the rule of law.
