What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
Weekend Recap: April 26 & 27, 2025
While in Rome on Saturday to attend the funeral of Pope Francis, Donald Trump issued a post on Truth Social that highlights several recurring problems with his rhetorical style and approach to public discourse: personal grievance framing, historical revisionism, deflection of accountability, and an incoherent presentation of foreign policy thinking.
The post opens with a classic Trumpian preemptive defense—claiming that no matter what deal he brokers on Russia and Ukraine, the media, specifically The New York Times, will criticize him. This tactic allows him to undermine future critiques before they are even made, shifting focus away from the content of any deal and onto the loyalty or bias of his perceived enemies. Rather than addressing the substantive questions surrounding any potential peace settlement, Trump deflects by attacking individual journalists, in this case Peter Baker, using juvenile name-calling (“Liddle’ Peter Baker”) instead of reasoned argument. This cheapens the discourse and diminishes any legitimate points he might wish to make regarding media bias.
Trump’s characterization of Baker's position—that Ukraine “should get back territory” including Crimea—as “ridiculous” ignores the broad international consensus that Russia's annexation of Crimea was illegal under international law. Trump again revises history by blaming the Obama administration exclusively for Russia’s seizure of Crimea, sidestepping the complexities of Russian aggression and regional geopolitics. His claim that Obama allowed Crimea to be taken “without even a shot being fired” is misleading and ignores the broader diplomatic and military context, including the role of Russian military deception (the so-called “little green men”) and the limited capacity of Ukraine’s military at the time.
Notably, Trump presents himself as having had no role in the current conflict beyond supplying Javelin missiles to Ukraine “early on.” This conveniently overlooks his own public behavior toward Russia during his first term, including his well-documented reluctance to criticize Vladimir Putin and his temporary suspension of military aid to Ukraine, which led to his first impeachment. His attempt to shift sole responsibility to Biden as “Sleepy Joe” further reflects a refusal to engage seriously with the policy decisions made during his own presidency.
The post briefly gestures toward condemning Putin’s recent missile attacks on civilian areas, but does so only after several paragraphs of grievance airing and blame-shifting. The vague mention that “maybe [Putin] doesn’t want to stop the war” followed by a tossed-off suggestion of “Banking” or “Secondary Sanctions?” suggests a lack of concrete strategy. The uncertainty in Trump’s phrasing (“tapping me along,” “has to be dealt with differently”) conveys reactive improvisation rather than leadership. His rhetorical question about sanctions sounds more like brainstorming aloud than presenting a coherent plan, undercutting any impression of presidential decisiveness.
Finally, while Trump concludes by noting that “too many people are dying,” this acknowledgment feels tacked on rather than central to his message. The overwhelming focus of the post is on personal vindication and attacking critics, rather than engaging with the urgent human cost of the war or outlining a principled approach to ending the conflict.
As usual, the post reflects Trump’s signature style of personal score-settling and victimhood narrative, wrapped in historical distortion and foreign policy vagueness. Rather than offering leadership or clarity on the Russia-Ukraine crisis, Trump uses the opportunity to rehash old grudges, deflect responsibility, and undermine legitimate debate with inflammatory rhetoric.
Donald Trump's post on Truth Social exemplifies the same pattern of inflammatory rhetoric, factual distortion, and conspiracy-laden insinuations that have long characterized his social media presence. The post levies serious accusations, such as alleging illegal foreign contributions to ActBlue and claiming widespread Democratic election fraud, without offering any concrete evidence or legal substantiation. This tactic of accusation by assertion, absent verification, is irresponsible and deliberately corrosive to the integrity of public discourse.
Trump’s characterization of ActBlue as an “ILLEGAL SCAM” is particularly reckless, given that ActBlue is a widely used fundraising platform that operates legally under federal campaign finance laws. While there have been partisan complaints and calls for closer scrutiny of donation mechanisms, there is no credible evidence presented here to justify the criminal label Trump assigns. Such baseless framing serves more as a political smear than a substantive critique of campaign finance systems.
The claim that Democrats “only know how to win by CHEATING” is another blanket assertion that seeks to delegitimize electoral outcomes through repetition rather than proof. This framing echoes Trump’s long-standing strategy of undermining elections he or his allies lose, normalizing the notion that any political defeat must be the result of fraud rather than voter rejection.
The bizarre pivot to “Crooked Adam Schiff” and the reference to a “full Pardon” granted by an “Auto Pen” injects yet another layer of confusion and conspiracy. Trump’s vague implication that Schiff somehow received an illicit or unauthorized pardon, paired with the suggestion that President Biden was unaware of it, borders on incoherent rumor-mongering. No evidence has been provided to support the existence of such a pardon, nor does the concept of an “Auto Pen” granting clemency independently make any legal or procedural sense. Presidential pardons require direct executive action, not the mere use of an autopen for signature replication.
Finally, Trump concludes with a call for political imprisonment— “They should all be in jail!”—which reflects his authoritarian instinct to criminalize opposition rather than engage in democratic debate. This repeated escalation toward the language of political purges, absent due process or evidence, remains one of the most dangerous hallmarks of his public commentary.
This post is not a legitimate policy critique or a fact-based accusation. Instead, it continues Trump’s practice of using social media as a vehicle for spreading disinformation, inflaming partisan hostility, and undermining public trust in democratic institutions.
In a later Truth Social post this afternoon, Donald Trump openly embraced the demonization of dissent, the rejection of open discourse, and the promotion of authoritarian tactics disguised as party unity.
At its core, the statement encourages Republican lawmakers to suppress opposition voices by labeling them as “disruptors and troublemakers” who should be “immediately ejected” from public forums. This not only disregards the principle of free speech but also undermines the democratic tradition of open town halls where constituents—including critics—have the right to engage their elected representatives. Town halls are designed as spaces for dialogue, not for loyalty tests or choreographed displays of partisan conformity.
Trump’s claim that the Democratic Party is "paying a fortune" to infiltrate Republican events is presented without evidence, leaning once again on conspiracy rhetoric to delegitimize any visible dissent. Instead of recognizing that criticism might come from within the Republican base itself—a sign of healthy political debate—he insists that any disagreement is artificial and externally manufactured. This framing creates an "enemy within" narrative that fosters suspicion, paranoia, and polarization.
The insistence that there is “only LOVE and UNITY” within the Republican Party, despite evidence of intra-party disagreements on key issues, reflects a cult-like demand for uniformity rather than genuine consensus. The characterization of critics as outsiders rather than fellow Americans with differing views seeks to erase legitimate grievances and concerns from public conversation.
Perhaps most dangerously, the call to deny critics a platform and remove them by force from civic spaces echoes authoritarian playbooks, where dissent is treated not as a right but as a threat to be eliminated. This posture contradicts core American democratic values and signals a willingness to abandon pluralism in favor of ideological purity.
In sum, the post exemplifies Trump’s ongoing effort to normalize intolerance of dissent, delegitimize opposition through baseless accusations, and equate disagreement with sabotage—all while cloaking these tactics in the language of patriotism and unity. The result is a toxic political message that encourages exclusion, not engagement, division, or dialogue.
Martha Raddatz interviewed U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on ABC’s “This Week” news show. The interview revealed troubling patterns that reflect both the weaknesses of the Trump administration’s economic messaging and the broader incoherence of its trade and fiscal policy approach. Throughout the exchange, Bessent repeatedly deflects substantive questions with vague reassurances, selectively references data to avoid addressing uncomfortable economic realities, and relies on ideological talking points rather than concrete evidence or strategy.
From the outset, Bessent dismisses polling that shows growing public pessimism about the economy, claiming he hasn’t seen the numbers and questioning their validity because “Americans are behaving very different than what the surveys say.” This rhetorical dodge ignores that consumer spending, while resilient, does not negate the broader indicators of economic distress, including market volatility, slowing investment, and rising concerns from both small businesses and major retailers. Rather than engaging with the core issue—that confidence in the administration’s economic stewardship is eroding—Bessent falls back on a simplistic and unconvincing dismissal of public sentiment as merely “media driven.”
The exchange regarding Trump’s claim of having secured “200 deals” on tariffs further exposes the administration’s lack of transparency and strategic clarity. Bessent attempts to rationalize Trump’s boast by reframing these supposed deals as “sub deals” or negotiations in progress, but cannot identify any finalized agreements. His evasion underscores the broader problem of the administration’s habit of announcing victories before any substantive results have been achieved, a pattern that damages credibility both domestically and abroad.
Perhaps the most concerning portion of the interview revolves around the administration’s use of tariffs as a central negotiating tool. Bessent frames Trump’s erratic tariff announcements and withdrawals as “strategic uncertainty,” borrowing the language of game theory without providing evidence that such tactics have delivered meaningful concessions or stable agreements. The reliance on unpredictability as a feature of policy, rather than a bug, undermines the basic predictability that businesses require for long-term planning. This is not lost on Raddatz, who rightly challenges Bessent with the real-world consequences voiced by small business owners and major retailers warning of supply chain disruptions and empty shelves.
When pressed on the timeline for “reindustrializing” the U.S. economy and bringing back manufacturing jobs, Bessent offers little more than buzzwords about a “barbell economy” and a “reallocation” of labor. His acknowledgment that the administration is “shedding labor” in the federal government while hoping the private sector picks up the slack is especially tone-deaf in the face of public anxiety about job security and wage stagnation. Moreover, his failure to articulate a clear, actionable plan for how and when these promised high-performance manufacturing jobs will materialize exposes the emptiness of the administration’s rhetoric on economic revitalization.
On the issue of U.S.-China trade negotiations, Bessent’s responses border on evasive. Despite Trump’s repeated assertions that talks with China are active and productive, Bessent concedes he doesn’t know whether Trump has even spoken to Xi Jinping. His explanation that the Chinese are “playing to a different audience” while simultaneously insisting that negotiations are underway suggests confusion and miscommunication at the highest levels of U.S. economic policy.
Finally, when confronted with investor concerns over the simultaneous decline of the dollar, stocks, and bonds, Bessent once again defaults to dismissiveness, characterizing market reactions as mere “noise.” This casual attitude toward significant financial instability betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how sustained investor confidence is built and maintained.
The interview paints a picture of an administration struggling to reconcile its aggressive trade posturing with the economic harm it is inflicting on American businesses and consumers. Bessent’s performance reflects the broader failures of Trump’s economic team: a lack of coherent strategy, an overreliance on bluster, and a refusal to engage with either data or dissent meaningfully. Rather than reassuring the public or financial markets, Bessent’s evasions and platitudes only deepen concerns about the competence and direction of the administration’s economic policies.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared on NBC’s “Meet The Press” this morning in an interview with Kristen Welker that exemplifies several of the key deficiencies that have come to characterize the Trump administration’s foreign policy messaging: excessive praise for presidential leadership without substantive proof of progress, vague and repetitive language masking the absence of concrete diplomatic outcomes, and a troubling willingness to blur lines between diplomacy and coercion.
On the Ukraine-Russia peace negotiations, Rubio repeatedly credits President Trump with bringing the two sides “closer than they’ve been in three years,” yet offers no specific details on what substantive compromises or agreements have been achieved. The language used — “closer,” “critical week,” “we’re not there yet” — is both noncommittal and circular, effectively buying time without accountability. Rather than articulating a clear framework for peace or even minimal conditions for success, Rubio pivots continually back to lauding Trump’s personal involvement, positioning the president as the indispensable actor in the process without acknowledging the contributions of allies, the Ukrainian people, or multilateral efforts.
Perhaps most concerning is Rubio’s rationalization of potential concessions to Russia. While he couches the discussion in the language of “grown-up realism,” his rhetoric reflects an abandonment of his previous hardline stance on Russian territorial aggression. By arguing that both sides must “give something up,” Rubio implicitly entertains the possibility of legitimizing Russian territorial gains in Ukraine. This position sharply contrasts with his earlier Senate co-sponsorship of legislation rejecting such claims. Without explaining or acknowledging the contradiction, this rhetorical shift suggests political expediency rather than principled diplomacy.
Rubio’s justification for delaying sanctions on Russia further reveals the administration’s lack of coherent leverage. Despite admitting that sanctions remain on the table, he argues that imposing them would “doom” diplomacy and risk prolonging the war — a curious position, given that the threat of sanctions is often used precisely to strengthen negotiation positions. His remarks reflect the administration’s broader pattern of conflating conciliatory posturing with effective statecraft.
On the issue of deporting U.S. citizen children alongside their undocumented parents, Rubio’s dismissive tone is deeply troubling. His effort to downplay the deportation of sick children, including a cancer patient, and to blame reporting for “misleading headlines” ignores the serious ethical and legal questions raised by such actions. Rather than addressing the failure of due process or acknowledging the humanitarian consequences, Rubio reframes the issue as a simple matter of enforcing immigration laws, stripping the situation of its moral and constitutional complexity.
The discussion of the State Department’s planned staffing cuts highlights another area where Rubio offers little beyond bureaucratic platitudes. He frames the 15% reduction target as a commonsense streamlining of government waste, but fails to specify which diplomatic functions or regions will be impacted. Instead, he leans on familiar right-wing talking points about government size without demonstrating any nuanced understanding of how such cuts might affect American diplomatic capacity during ongoing global crises.
Finally, the exchange on Trump’s inflammatory comments about annexing Canada underscores the unseriousness of some of the administration’s foreign policy rhetoric. Rubio’s attempt to rationalize the president’s remarks as merely a trade dispute retort fails to address the recklessness of a U.S. president joking—or perhaps not joking—about annexing a sovereign democratic neighbor. Rather than clarifying the administration’s position, Rubio deflects, leaving the public with more ambiguity about whether such comments were intended as policy signals or simply another instance of Trump’s provocative style.
This interview demonstrates a pattern of obfuscation, deflection, and rhetorical excess. Rubio repeatedly prioritizes defending Trump’s image over providing meaningful information about policy goals, strategy, or ethical considerations. The result is a portrayal of an administration long on self-congratulation but short on diplomatic credibility.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union, offering a revealing glimpse into the Trump administration’s ongoing struggles to reconcile its aggressive trade posture with the economic anxieties of American consumers and farmers, who were once core supporters of Trump’s economic agenda. Rollins’ responses are emblematic of the broader pattern within the administration: deflection, overreliance on rhetoric about “America First,” and a failure to provide substantive answers on pressing economic concerns.
Throughout the exchange, Rollins avoids directly addressing the core issue raised by Dana Bash—the president’s record-low economic approval numbers and the widespread perception that his trade policies are contributing to consumer pain. Instead, Rollins falls back on the standard talking point that Trump “does not govern by polls,” a familiar refrain meant to dismiss public dissatisfaction without confronting its underlying causes. This rhetorical sidestep is especially glaring given that the interview centers on grocery prices, trade instability, and rural economic distress—all issues where public opinion is not merely abstract but tied to real-world economic hardship.
The attempt to pivot to immigration enforcement and border security as economic “successes” feels particularly misplaced in this context. Rollins’ focus on the 95% drop in border crossings and the arrest of “74 terrorists” seems irrelevant to the specific economic questions being posed about tariffs, food prices, and trade relationships. This deflection not only weakens the credibility of her answers but also underscores the administration’s difficulty in articulating a clear, data-backed defense of its economic policies.
On the topic of grocery prices—especially the widely cited spike in egg costs—Rollins acknowledges the problem but relies on vague promises of future improvement based on wholesale price shifts. She claims a “58% decrease in wholesale egg prices” over the last six weeks but offers no direct timeline for when or if consumers will feel relief. Instead of accepting responsibility for the current situation, Rollins blames the previous administration, despite Trump now being in office for over three months into his second term. This continued invocation of “Biden-era inflation” as a fallback excuse feels increasingly hollow as price hikes persist under Trump’s watch.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Rollins’ responses is the lack of clarity regarding the administration’s supposed “200 deals” and “100 countries knocking at the door” for trade renegotiations. Despite these repeated claims, Rollins is unable to specify which countries are involved, what products are on the table, or when any of these deals might be finalized. The vagueness stands in stark contrast to the administration’s grandiose assertions of economic progress. When confronted with the fact that China has significantly cut soybean and pork imports from the U.S. in favor of Brazil and Argentina, Rollins offers little beyond recycled confidence in Trump’s deal-making skills and promises of government mitigation if farmers suffer. The reliance on bailouts as a fallback strategy, while denying their inevitability, signals a reactive rather than proactive approach to managing the fallout of Trump’s trade wars.
Finally, Rollins' repeated use of broad, feel-good language—such as “feeding the world,” “making America healthy again,” and “the ultimate dealmaker”—exposes the administration’s strategy of substituting branding for policy substance. There is little acknowledgment of farmers' immediate uncertainty or the fact that retaliatory tariffs and lost export markets are already harming key agricultural sectors.
In summary, the interview reveals an administration still clinging to slogans and symbolic politics while offering few concrete solutions to the economic pressures facing American consumers and farmers. Rollins’ inability to directly answer questions about trade deal specifics, grocery price timelines, and tariff consequences highlights a pattern of evasion that only deepens skepticism about Trump’s second-term economic leadership.