What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
February 25, 2025 Recap
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s briefing today at the White House was an exercise in self-congratulatory rhetoric, selective framing of data, and a continued effort to redefine White House press access in ways that raise concerns about transparency and media independence. The briefing was riddled with omissions, questionable statistical claims, and a striking avoidance of substantive scrutiny.
Leavitt opened by touting Apple’s pledge to invest $500 billion in American industry, characterizing it as proof that President Trump’s economic policies are revitalizing U.S. manufacturing. However, no details were provided on how much of that investment is truly new capital or merely a repackaging of pre-existing commitments. Similarly, her assertion that Trump’s policies alone inspired Apple’s move ignored global economic factors, market dynamics, and the company’s long-term strategic interests. Additionally, the cited $1 trillion in pledged investments into the U.S. economy lacked independent verification or clarification on whether this represented private capital or tax-incentivized spending. These grand announcements, while politically useful, demanded deeper scrutiny.
On immigration, Leavitt highlighted a 94% decline in illegal border crossings over the past year, a 134% rise in interior arrests, and a 15-year low in daily crossings. While these figures, if accurate, suggest dramatic shifts, they lack the necessary context. She did not address whether enforcement practices had changed, whether asylum pathways were restricted, or whether apprehensions declined simply because fewer migrants were attempting crossings. Her assertion that migrants were “abandoning their journey” due to Trump’s security policies lacked empirical backing beyond isolated cases. More concerning was her defense of holding deported migrants at Guantanamo Bay, dismissing them as mere “criminals.” This sweeping generalization ignored reports that many of those detained lacked serious criminal records, reducing a complex issue to a politically convenient narrative.
Perhaps the most controversial announcement concerned changes to White House press pool access. Leavitt stated that White House staff—not the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA)—would now determine which journalists receive privileged access to the president. While she framed this as a move to “diversify” media representation, it represents a troubling centralization of control within the administration itself. This shift raises concerns that the White House could favor sympathetic outlets while excluding critical voices, further reinforced by Leavitt’s celebration of the administration’s legal victory in blocking the Associated Press from select White House events. Her justification that “asking the president questions in limited spaces is a privilege” directly contradicts Trump’s claimed commitment to transparency. If this administration is truly “the most transparent ever,” why take steps to limit press access?
A particularly unusual aspect of the briefing was Leavitt’s defense of Elon Musk’s growing influence over government operations, specifically his role in overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Despite pointed questions about Musk’s authority, potential AI-driven job evaluations, and whether his role exceeds the 130-day limit for special government employees, Leavitt provided little clarification. She instead doubled down on the defense that DOGE’s policy of requiring federal workers to submit weekly reports on their tasks was a “common sense” initiative to eliminate waste. However, the broader concern remains unanswered—that this initiative could serve as a pretext for sweeping government job cuts. Furthermore, reports suggest that some agencies were blindsided by Musk’s involvement, contradicting Leavitt’s claim that all cabinet secretaries were fully informed.
On foreign policy, Leavitt’s remarks on the U.S. approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict were strikingly vague. She insisted that President Trump remained committed to securing a peace deal but failed to outline any expected Russian concessions, fueling concerns among European allies that the administration is pressuring Ukraine into a one-sided compromise. Similarly, her response to questions about Israel’s potential military withdrawal from Lebanon lacked clarity, reinforcing doubts about the administration’s ability to manage Middle Eastern diplomacy effectively.
Ultimately, Leavitt’s briefing was less an exercise in governmental transparency and more a polished display of political messaging. The administration’s self-congratulatory tone, selective use of data, and defensive posture toward media scrutiny suggest a government more focused on controlling the narrative than engaging in substantive dialogue. The most troubling takeaways include the administration’s tightening control over media access, the lack of transparency in its economic and immigration policies, and the expanding influence of figures like Elon Musk over government operations. The briefing ultimately raised more questions than answered—highlighting the need for continued independent oversight and press scrutiny.
A mass resignation of 21 civil service employees from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has dealt a temporary setback to the Trump administration’s efforts to overhaul the federal workforce. The resigning staffers, who previously worked for the U.S. Digital Service (USDS), stated in a joint letter that they could no longer ethically support DOGE’s agenda, which they claim is aimed at dismantling critical public services rather than improving government efficiency. They accused the administration of replacing experienced technologists with political ideologues who lack the necessary skills to handle complex government systems.
The resignation follows a wave of layoffs in early February, when 40 USDS employees were fired, significantly weakening the government's ability to modernize essential services such as Social Security, veterans’ benefits, tax filing, and disaster relief. The former staffers, many of whom held previous roles at Google and Amazon, emphasized that their work was about public service, not politics, but that DOGE’s leadership made it impossible to uphold their mission. They also described being subjected to politically charged interviews by anonymous individuals wearing White House visitor badges, many of whom they believed had a limited technical understanding of the government’s digital infrastructure.
In response to the resignations, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed the protest, calling it irrelevant to President Trump’s commitment to making the government “more efficient and accountable.” Meanwhile, Musk took to his social media platform, X, to call the story “fake news,” suggesting that the employees were “Democratic political holdovers” who would have been fired anyway. Despite these dismissals, former government technologists have expressed concern that Musk’s approach to governance—prioritizing disruption over stability—poses security risks and undermines critical federal programs. One ex-employee noted that while the “move fast and break things” philosophy works in private industry, breaking government systems harms millions of Americans who rely on them daily.
Musk’s involvement in DOGE escalated beyond what was initially outlined during Trump’s 2024 campaign when the department was presented as an independent, external commission. Since the election, Musk has aggressively embraced his role, publicly mocking bureaucratic processes and boasting about slashing government jobs. His controversial stance was on full display last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference, where he hoisted a Chinese-made, gold-plated chainsaw gifted by Argentina’s President Javier Milei, calling it the “chainsaw for bureaucracy.”
Beyond the federal workforce shake-up, the administration also faces a lawsuit from The Associated Press on First and Fifth Amendment grounds, accusing officials of retaliation against journalists. The legal battle stems from an executive order requiring media outlets to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America,” a move the AP has refused to comply with.
The resignations highlight deepening tensions between the tech industry and civil service, growing concerns over data security, and the long-term implications of Musk’s government role. While Trump and his allies push ahead with their tech-driven purge of the federal workforce, the departure of skilled civil servants raises questions about whether the administration’s reforms will improve efficiency or dismantle essential services.
President Trump announced a new immigration initiative called the "gold card," offering a path to U.S. residency and citizenship for foreign investors who pay $5 million. He stated the program would launch in two weeks and did not believe congressional approval was necessary. Without congressional oversight, such an initiative could be vulnerable to legal challenges and accusations of favoritism or corruption. The lack of clarity surrounding implementation, vetting procedures, and its potential impact on the deficit further deepens concerns.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick explained that applicants might pay the fee directly to the U.S. government instead of investing in private businesses. He emphasized that participants would still undergo vetting to ensure they are "world-class, global citizens." Trump suggested the funds raised could help reduce the national deficit.
One of the most striking criticisms is the blatant commercialization of American residency. By effectively selling green cards to the highest bidder, the policy reinforces the idea that U.S. immigration is a privilege reserved for the wealthy rather than a system based on merit, family reunification, or humanitarian needs. This shift away from the traditional values of American immigration prioritizes wealth over contribution, skill, or personal circumstance.
Additionally, the program seems to replace the existing EB-5 visa, which already allows foreign investors to obtain residency by contributing to American businesses. However, unlike the EB-5 program—which ties investment to job creation and economic development—the "gold card" program appears to simply transfer money directly to the government, raising questions about its effectiveness in fostering economic growth.
Moreover, this initiative starkly contrasts with Trump’s broader immigration policies. While his administration aggressively pursues mass deportations and border crackdowns, the introduction of a pay-to-stay program exposes a contradiction: those with financial means can secure a future in the U.S. At the same time, lower-income migrants—many of whom contribute through essential labor—face expulsion. This policy not only exacerbates income inequality but also contradicts Trump's own rhetoric on securing borders and prioritizing American workers.
Ultimately, the "gold card" proposal appears less like a well-thought-out policy and more like a transactional shortcut that undermines the principles of U.S. immigration. Placing a price tag on residency risks turning American citizenship into a commodity rather than an opportunity earned through contribution and commitment.
A trio of federal judges ruled against the Trump administration in three separate cases, delivering setbacks on issues related to federal spending, refugee admissions, and foreign aid. In the first case, Judge Loren AliKhan extended a block on the administration’s attempt to freeze federal grants, loans, and other financial aid. AliKhan criticized the initiative, calling it “ill-conceived” and practically impossible to implement overnight. The spending freeze was part of the Department of Government Efficiency initiative, an effort to cut federal spending overseen by billionaire Elon Musk.
In another case, Judge Jamal Whitehead in Washington state struck down an executive order by President Trump that had paused the nation’s Refugee Admissions Program. While acknowledging the president’s authority over refugee admissions, Whitehead ruled that this power is not limitless and must comply with the legal framework established by Congress.
The third ruling, issued by Judge Amir Ali in a Washington, D.C. federal court, marked the third time the court had ordered the Trump administration to release foreign aid funds. The decision came after an attorney for aid groups reported that previously ordered disbursements remained frozen. These rulings represent significant legal obstacles to the administration’s policies on spending and humanitarian programs.
President Trump signed a memorandum on Tuesday suspending security clearances for certain individuals who had worked with Special Counsel Jack Smith in legal cases against him prior to the 2024 presidential election. The order specifically targets employees of the law firm Covington & Burling LLP, some of whom had provided pro bono legal assistance to Smith’s team. These individuals will now be subject to further review regarding their access to classified information. Trump suggested that other law firms involved in similar cases could face the same scrutiny in the future.
Additionally, the memorandum lacks substantive justification or due process, failing to provide evidence that the named individuals or the law firm engaged in wrongdoing that would warrant such actions. The absence of an independent review or legal basis raises concerns that this is an act of political retribution rather than a necessary security measure. The directive’s broad language, instructing agencies to terminate engagements with Covington & Burling LLP and review all government contracts with the firm, also raises questions about executive overreach. While the administration has discretion over federal contracts, linking agency funding decisions to political priorities instead of merit-based criteria risks undermining the integrity of government procurement processes. The reference to Executive Order 14147, which seeks to end the "weaponization" of government, is vague and lacks a clear legal definition, making its application subjective and potentially arbitrary.
Beyond its immediate legal implications, this memorandum could have a chilling effect on attorneys and professionals working in government. Targeting a specific law firm based on its past legal representation suggests that individuals engaged in politically sensitive cases could face retaliation under future administrations. This could discourage qualified legal experts from participating in high-profile government cases, ultimately harming the justice system’s independence and effectiveness. Furthermore, the closing clause stating that the memorandum “does not create any right or benefit” contradicts its earlier directives, raising questions about its enforceability. If the administration intends this as a legally binding order, it could face significant legal challenges; if it is merely a symbolic act, it serves as little more than political signaling.
During the signing, Trump referred to the order as “the deranged Jack Smith signing — or bill” and claimed that he understood the legal maneuvers used in such cases better than anyone. He accused law firms of weaponizing the legal system to “clog up government” and impede its operations, arguing that such actions should never be allowed to happen again.
At one point, a reporter attempted to ask a question about military troops, but Trump interrupted her, stating, “Wait, I just want to savor this one, please.” He then turned to the room and jokingly asked, “Who would like this pen?” before tossing it off-camera and saying, “Here, why don’t you send it to Jack Smith.”
Trump later took questions from reporters but was visibly dismissive of those perceived as sympathetic to Smith’s legal efforts. His comments and actions at the event underscored his ongoing criticism of the investigations and prosecutions he has faced, which he has repeatedly framed as politically motivated attacks.
President Trump’s Executive Order on Making America Healthy Again reaffirms past healthcare price transparency policies but offers little substantive improvement. It oversimplifies the issue by assuming price disclosure alone will empower patients, ignoring complexities such as emergency care, insurance variability, and non-shoppable services. The order’s partisan framing, blaming the Biden administration for stalled progress, undermines its credibility as a policy initiative.
Lacking clear enforcement mechanisms, the order calls for agency action but fails to specify penalties or funding for oversight. Its economic claims—projecting $80 billion in savings and a 27% cost reduction—are speculative and fail to account for broader industry factors. While advocating for patient empowerment, the order neglects deeper barriers like surprise billing, healthcare literacy, and affordability.
Though transparency is a worthwhile goal, this order rehashes old policies, politicizes enforcement, and lacks substantive measures to ensure compliance. A more meaningful approach would involve bipartisan legislation addressing structural healthcare reform beyond mere price disclosure.
President Trump issued an executive order on copper imports aiming to address national security concerns by investigating U.S. reliance on foreign copper supplies. While the order highlights vulnerabilities in smelting and refining capacity, it lacks clear evidence that current import levels pose an immediate threat. Unlike rare earth elements, copper is widely available from multiple sources, making the justification for national security measures questionable.
Imposing trade restrictions or tariffs could increase costs for industries reliant on copper, strain trade relations, and create supply chain disruptions without a viable domestic alternative in place. While the order proposes strengthening U.S. refining and recycling, these efforts require significant time and investment, making short-term benefits unlikely. Additionally, this directive follows a pattern of using Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act to justify protectionist policies, raising concerns about economic nationalism rather than genuine security risks.
While ensuring a stable domestic copper supply is a valid goal, this order leans on national security justifications without offering immediate solutions. A more effective approach would focus on incentivizing domestic production through investment and regulatory reforms rather than trade restrictions that could harm U.S. industries.
A new federal lawsuit in Maryland challenges a Trump administration memo requiring schools and universities to eliminate all "race-based" practices within two weeks or risk losing federal funding. Filed by the American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association, the lawsuit argues that the Education Department's Feb. 14 directive violates the First and Fifth Amendments, restricts free speech, and is overly vague.
The memo, known as a Dear Colleague Letter, cites a Supreme Court ruling that banned race-based college admissions and extends the decision to admissions, hiring, financial aid, graduation ceremonies, and all aspects of campus life. The Trump administration claims it aims to end discrimination, particularly against white and Asian American students.
The lawsuit contends that the Education Department is overextending the Supreme Court ruling and may improperly restrict teaching about topics such as systemic racism, slavery, and historical events. It also argues that the memo could ban student groups based on racial or cultural identity and diversity recruitment efforts.
The plaintiffs seek a court order to block the directive, warning that it could broadly impact higher education. The Education Department has not yet responded to the lawsuit.