What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
February 27, 2025 Recap
Today’s joint press conference between President Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer was a mixture of diplomatic formalities, exaggerated rhetoric, and vague policy statements. While both leaders emphasized the US-UK alliance's historic nature and shared commitment to global security, the discussion lacked substantive commitments and clear policy direction. Trump, in particular, frequently resorted to grandiose statements without offering concrete details, especially regarding trade and security agreements. Although he repeatedly assured that a “great trade deal” was on the horizon, he provided no specifics on its terms, timeline, or potential obstacles. His stance on tariffs was similarly inconsistent—on the one hand, he championed tariffs as a key economic tool, yet on the other, he suggested that the UK might be exempt without outlining a clear rationale.
A recurring issue throughout Trump's remarks was his tendency to make sweeping, unverified claims. He asserted that his administration had made “historic” progress toward peace in Ukraine, yet he failed to present any tangible evidence of diplomatic breakthroughs. His claim that the war in Ukraine would not have happened under his leadership oversimplifies the geopolitical tensions that had been escalating for years. Additionally, his statement that the US had taken in "hundreds of billions of dollars" from tariffs is misleading, as tariffs are largely paid by domestic importers and consumers rather than foreign governments. While politically appealing to his base, these statements lacked the factual basis necessary to inspire confidence in his policy approach.
Trump’s comments on NATO and European security raised further concerns about his commitment to transatlantic alliances. While he stated that he supports NATO’s Article 5, he added that he does not think it will be necessary, which could be interpreted as downplaying the alliance’s collective defense obligations. His approach to Ukraine also seemed transactional, as he emphasized the potential for US economic gains through access to Ukraine’s mineral and energy resources rather than articulating a principled stance against Russian aggression. In contrast, Starmer took a more structured and pragmatic approach, emphasizing the need for Europe to "step up" its defense spending, aligning with broader efforts to bolster European security.
Trump largely deflected difficult questions when facing press scrutiny, particularly his contradictory statements about Zelensky and Putin. His response to concerns over tariffs relied more on anecdotal rhetoric than economic reasoning. On the other hand, Starmer provided clearer responses, particularly on NATO and defense spending. However, he avoided directly addressing concerns about the BBC’s credibility regarding Gaza coverage, opting for a diplomatic but noncommittal response. While his careful approach was likely meant to preserve a smooth working relationship with Trump, it may have come across as overly cautious.
Most of the conference was dedicated to symbolic gestures rather than substantive discussions. Trump made a point of reinstating the bust of Winston Churchill in the Oval Office, emphasizing its importance as a tribute to US-UK relations. While such gestures hold diplomatic significance, the focus on symbolism overshadowed pressing policy concerns. Similarly, Starmer’s repeated praise of Trump’s leadership seemed somewhat forced, likely a calculated move to maintain diplomatic rapport despite their ideological differences. While it is understandable that Starmer sought to keep relations amicable, his remarks risked appearing overly deferential rather than constructively critical.
The press conference felt more like a political performance than a substantive policy exchange. Trump relied heavily on self-congratulatory rhetoric, broad claims, and economic populism without offering detailed trade, security, or diplomacy plans. Starmer presented a more measured and diplomatic presence but avoided directly challenging Trump, likely prioritizing strategic relationship-building over confrontation. While the reaffirmation of the US-UK alliance was expected, the discussion failed to provide meaningful clarity on critical global issues such as the future of NATO, the war in Ukraine, and economic cooperation.
Chief Justice John Roberts issued a temporary stay on a federal judge’s order requiring the Trump administration to release frozen foreign aid funds. This pause allows the Supreme Court time to consider the administration’s request to block the ruling.
The dispute stems from lawsuits by aid organizations claiming that the administration illegally froze all foreign aid payments despite multiple court orders mandating their release. Citing its "America First" agenda, the administration has finalized decisions to cancel over 90% of USAID’s contracts, affecting over $58 billion in global aid.
Trump’s administration argues it has the right to review and terminate agreements that don’t align with its policies, including those related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. The funding freeze has severely disrupted global humanitarian efforts, leading to legal challenges from affected organizations and USAID employee unions.
While the administration has promised to expedite some past-due payments, full compliance remains uncertain. Federal judges, including Judge Amir Ali, have criticized the administration’s refusal to follow court orders, and plaintiffs have warned that ongoing delays threaten life-saving aid programs.
The Trump administration is reviewing a $590 million contract awarded to Moderna for a human bird flu vaccine in the final days of the Biden administration. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) stated that the Biden administration’s handling of vaccine production agreements necessitated this reassessment. With an ongoing bird flu outbreak affecting poultry and cattle, delaying vaccine development could hinder preparedness efforts at a critical time. While fiscal responsibility is essential, the abrupt review of a contract designed to accelerate pandemic response raises concerns about whether science and public health are taking a backseat to political maneuvering.
Additionally, the involvement of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a known vaccine skeptic, casts doubt on the objectivity of this review. Kennedy has repeatedly made controversial and widely debunked claims about vaccines, including calling COVID-19 shots the "deadliest vaccine ever made." His influence suggests that this review may not be based on scientific merit but on ideological opposition to mRNA vaccine technology.
The timing of this review also coincides with Moderna’s financial struggles in the post-pandemic market. While the company seeks new revenue streams, the contract was awarded based on its ability to develop an mRNA-based H5N1 vaccine rapidly. This technology has already proven effective in combating infectious diseases. Scrutinizing the contract now could delay critical research and discourage private-sector innovation in vaccine development.
Source: The Hill
The Trump administration has dismissed five federal immigration judges in Texas, a move that the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers warns could exacerbate the already severe case backlog in immigration courts. Based in Houston, Laredo, and El Paso, the judges included three associate chief judges responsible for managing courts and implementing policy. Their removal is part of a broader shakeup that has seen 28 employees from the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review dismissed in recent weeks.
With nearly 4 million cases pending in U.S. immigration courts, critics argue that removing judges will only worsen delays, potentially leaving both undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers in legal limbo for years. The Government Accountability Office has previously warned about the growing backlog and urged reforms, but systemic issues remain unresolved.
Observers suggest that these firings align with the Trump administration’s broader strategy of reducing reliance on immigration courts by expanding expedited removal, a process that allows deportations without judicial review. This expansion applies to undocumented immigrants nationwide who have been in the country for less than two years, potentially circumventing court proceedings altogether.
A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration can proceed with firing dozens of CIA and intelligence officers who worked on diversity programs. U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga acknowledged the concerns about fairness but stated that the law dictated his decision.
At least 51 officers face dismissal as part of broader efforts to reduce the federal workforce. The lawsuit, brought by 19 intelligence officers, argued that they should be reassigned rather than terminated. However, the judge found their case unconvincing.
Attorney Kevin Carroll warned that allowing CIA Director John Ratcliffe broad firing authority could lead to discriminatory dismissals, though government lawyers refuted this claim. Ratcliffe defended the firings as being in the “interests of the United States,” citing legal provisions granting intelligence directors wide discretion.
While the ruling could lead to further intelligence agency job cuts, the judge suggested that the dismissed officers be allowed to apply for other roles within the CIA. Carroll said he and his clients are considering their next steps.
Elon Musk has criticized Verizon’s efforts to upgrade the FAA’s air traffic control communications system, calling it a “failing” project that could lead to a “catastrophic failure” in air travel safety within months. He suggested that Starlink, a unit of SpaceX, should take over.
Verizon holds a $2.4 billion contract for the FAA’s modernization program (FENS), but Musk claimed the system is breaking down and that the FAA is close to canceling the contract in favor of Starlink. The FAA has acknowledged testing three Starlink terminals, provided for free by SpaceX, but stated no decisions have been made about the contract.
While there is no dispute that the FAA’s aging systems need modernization, Musk’s alarmist rhetoric and push for SpaceX’s Starlink to take over appear more self-serving than purely in the public interest.
His statement that the FAA’s assessment predicts a catastrophic failure “within single-digit months” is especially troubling, as he provides no verifiable source for this claim. The FAA itself has not confirmed such a dire warning, and the lack of transparency about the risk assessment Musk references undermines the credibility of his argument.
Furthermore, the timing of his statement—just as reports surfaced that the FAA might cancel Verizon’s $2.4 billion contract in favor of Starlink—suggests a strategic move to position his company for a lucrative government contract. This raises ethical questions, especially given Musk’s role in advocating for federal budget cuts, including within agencies like the FAA, which directly regulate his business interests. If Starlink were to take over this project, it would represent a significant financial windfall for SpaceX while also centralizing even more power under Musk’s growing empire.
Verizon has refuted Musk’s claims, stating that it is building the next-generation system but is not responsible for the current outdated infrastructure. If that’s true, then the blame Musk assigns to Verizon may be misplaced or, at the very least, exaggerated for his own benefit. It’s also worth noting that federal contract cancellations are legally complex and take significant time, making it unlikely that SpaceX could seamlessly step in and fix the issue as quickly as Musk implies.
Another critical issue is the broader trend of Musk using his social media platform, X, to shape public narratives in ways that could serve his business interests. By leveraging his massive following and a direct communication channel, he bypasses traditional regulatory scrutiny and journalistic fact-checking, creating a powerful but potentially dangerous influence on public policy discussions.
Recent aviation accidents have intensified concerns about air traffic safety. While no evidence links these incidents to Verizon’s systems, the FAA and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy have indicated urgency in modernizing airspace operations. Musk’s role in recommending federal budget cuts, including at the FAA, raises potential conflict-of-interest concerns, as SpaceX is subject to FAA regulation.
A California federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from ordering mass firings of recently hired federal employees. Judge William Alsup ruled that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) lacks the authority to direct agencies to terminate probationary employees, who typically have less than a year of experience. His decision comes as former President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, who oversees the Department of Government Efficiency, push forward an aggressive plan to shrink the federal workforce, aiming to cut $1 trillion from the $6.7 trillion national budget.
The effort has faced strong opposition from Democrats, unions, and federal workers who argue that the job cuts are illegal and could severely impact government services. Some agencies have already begun layoffs, with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) terminating hundreds of employees and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officials warning of drastic staff reductions in the coming weeks. Additionally, OPM has instructed at least two dozen remote employees to relocate to Washington, D.C., by March 7 if they wish to keep their jobs.
Judge Alsup’s ruling ordered OPM to rescind its directives that instructed agencies to identify and terminate non-mission-critical probationary employees. However, he noted that he could not directly block the Department of Defense or other agencies from carrying out layoffs, as they were not named defendants in the lawsuit. Despite this, the judge emphasized that the firings would cause widespread harm, affecting national parks, scientific research, and veteran services. He also expressed skepticism that multiple federal agencies independently decided to significantly reduce their staff, suggesting instead that the terminations were being centrally coordinated.
A federal judge has ordered four Trump administration officials to testify in a lawsuit concerning the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and its controversial cuts to the federal workforce. The officials representing DOGE, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Labor will each face eight-hour questioning sessions.
Judge John Bates aims to clarify whether DOGE employees are also part of the United States Digital Service (USDS), which is a key issue in the case. Established under an executive order as a temporary agency within USDS, DOGE is mandated to terminate by July 4, 2026.
Six labor unions and the Economic Policy Institute filed a lawsuit in February, arguing that DOGE’s attempts to eliminate inefficiencies exceed legal boundaries. Critics, including Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers, have also raised concerns over potential data misuse.
Judge Bates is expected to decide soon whether DOGE should be temporarily barred from conducting reviews of federal agencies while the case proceeds.