What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
February 23, 2025 Recap
President Trump announced that conservative commentator and former Fox News host Dan Bongino has been appointed deputy FBI director. Bongino, a former Secret Service agent and NYPD officer with no FBI experience will serve alongside recently confirmed FBI Director Kash Patel. This appointment breaks the longstanding tradition of career FBI agents holding the role.
Bongino, a staunch Trump supporter, has promoted conspiracy theories about the FBI, including allegations that the bureau concealed information about the 2021 pipe bomb investigation and that the 2022 Mar-a-Lago search was an assassination attempt on Trump. He has also called for widespread firings within the FBI.
FBI officials and former Justice Department leaders have criticized the appointment, arguing that the deputy director should be an active special agent with operational expertise. A memo from the FBI Agents Association underscored this concern, emphasizing the need for experienced leadership.
Patel and Bongino's leadership comes amid major turnover within the FBI, with senior executives and field office heads being removed. Patel has faced accusations of orchestrating the firings, which his spokesperson has denied. Meanwhile, Trump has hinted at further personnel cuts in the FBI as part of a broader effort to reduce the federal workforce.
The Trump administration has placed most United States Agency for International Development (USAID) employees on administrative leave and laid off hundreds more. Around 4,200 staff members were put on leave, while at least 1,600 employees were fired, reducing the workforce by over half.
The decision follows a legal battle, with a federal judge allowing the administration to cut USAID jobs after an earlier pause. The administration, led by Trump and adviser Elon Musk, seeks to shrink the federal workforce and cut costs. It criticizes USAID as wasteful and overly liberal.
Trump announced that USAID's headquarters would be repurposed for the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), and the agency signed a deal to occupy the space. The cuts have already disrupted global aid efforts, freezing hundreds of programs worldwide. Critics, including former USAID chief Gayle Smith, warn that this move signals that the U.S. is withdrawing from its role as a reliable global humanitarian partner.
Several federal agencies, including the Pentagon, FBI, State Department, and intelligence community, have advised employees not to respond to an email from Elon Musk demanding that federal workers list five accomplishments from the past week or risk termination. The email, sent from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), set a deadline of Monday at 11:59 p.m. EST.
The Department of Defense and the FBI stated they would handle responses internally, while the State Department and intelligence agencies cited security and procedural concerns. Federal employee unions, including the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), also instructed their members not to comply, questioning OPM’s legal authority to make such a demand.
Musk, leading federal spending cuts through the Department of Government Efficiency, defended the email as a way to identify unproductive employees and potential fraud. While some agencies, like the Department of Health and Human Services, confirmed the email’s legitimacy, others, such as the National Institutes of Health, issued conflicting guidance.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth spoke with Shannon Bream on Fox News Sunday, revealing several critical issues in the Trump administration’s approach to the Ukraine-Russia war, including military leadership and broader foreign policy. One of the most glaring aspects of Hegseth’s responses was his reluctance to directly and unequivocally state that Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine. Despite persistent questioning, he deflected by framing discussions of responsibility as “finger-pointing” that does not contribute to peace. This avoidance seems to align with Trump’s broader reluctance to directly condemn Vladimir Putin, which raises concerns about the administration’s true stance on Russian aggression. His comment that “standing here and saying you’re good, you’re bad, you’re a dictator, you’re not a dictator” is a weak rationalization for avoiding a firm moral and strategic stance on the conflict.
Hegseth also claimed that only Trump has been able to bring Russia to the negotiating table, implying that Biden and previous administrations failed in diplomacy. However, he provided no concrete evidence or details of any substantive progress toward peace under Trump’s leadership. The lack of a clear strategy beyond “Donald Trump is strong” reduced his argument to a vague assertion rather than a verifiable diplomatic achievement. If real diplomatic progress is being made, he failed to outline any meaningful steps taken to secure an agreement.
Additionally, his defense of the recent Pentagon shake-up, which involved the removal of several high-ranking military officers, is framed as a standard practice aligned with past presidential transitions. However, the scale and motivations behind these dismissals appear politically driven rather than purely strategic. His assertion that the administration is merely selecting the “right people” contradicts reports that these changes target officials deemed insufficiently loyal to Trump. The repeated reference to “lawful orders” being followed suggests a concerning expectation of ideological conformity rather than independent military leadership.
Hegseth’s comments on removing top military lawyers (JAG officers) further reflect an attempt to consolidate control over military legal advisement. His dismissive response to concerns about these changes—particularly the idea that removing key legal officials could clear the way for unlawful actions—fails to address legitimate fears. His framing of these officers as roadblocks rather than essential legal safeguards within the military is deeply troubling. The restructuring of military leadership appears less about effectiveness and more about eliminating dissenting voices.
While Hegseth criticized the size and bureaucracy of the U.S. military, his argument that reducing the number of high-ranking officers would improve efficiency lacked nuance. He claimed that the U.S. won World War II with only seven four-star generals, ignoring the vastly different global military landscape today. His broader argument that military leadership should be streamlined for effectiveness is not inherently flawed, but his justification appears more politically motivated than strategically sound. If the goal is true military efficiency, there should be a more detailed and transparent explanation of how these changes will improve national defense.
Despite asserting that the U.S. will not put troops on the ground in Ukraine, Hegseth spoke favorably of European security initiatives. He acknowledged a growing U.S.-Ukraine economic partnership, particularly concerning rare-earth minerals, but failed to clarify the scope and conditions of these agreements. His comments on “security guarantees” remain vague, leaving open the possibility of U.S. involvement escalating under ambiguous terms. This lack of transparency creates uncertainty about America’s long-term role in the conflict and what commitments are being made behind closed doors.
Overall, Hegseth’s interview reflected a carefully managed narrative designed to minimize criticism of Russia, justify major personnel changes in the military, and reinforce the image of Trump as a strong leader without offering substantive details. His deflections on Russian aggression and his defense of political purges in the Pentagon raised concerns about the administration’s commitment to democratic norms and strategic military independence. While he claimed the administration is moving toward peace, his lack of specifics and refusal to acknowledge clear geopolitical realities suggest a policy based more on political optics than genuine strategic success.