What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
May 9, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump issued a post on Truth Social in a characteristically disjointed, rhetorically self-contradictory, and politically calculated statement, aimed more at preserving his populist branding than articulating a coherent tax policy.
First, Trump’s statement that he and other wealthy individuals would “graciously accept” a “TINY” tax increase comes across as performative rather than principled. By emphasizing the size (“TINY”) and his personal willingness, he frames the idea as a symbolic concession rather than a meaningful policy discussion about wealth inequality or fiscal responsibility. It’s an attempt to appear magnanimous without endorsing any substantive shift in tax burdens.
Second, his invocation of “Radical Left Democrat Lunatics” reveals the partisan reflex that has become typical of Trump’s messaging. He suggests that any tax increase, however modest, would be distorted by political opponents, referencing George H.W. Bush’s infamous “Read my lips: no new taxes” line, but fails to acknowledge that Bush’s credibility issue arose from breaking a campaign promise, not merely supporting a tax increase.
The Ross Perot aside is factually debatable and serves only to divert attention from the main topic. Blaming Perot for Bush’s 1992 loss is a contested narrative — many political analysts point to a complex mix of economic discontent, Bush’s broken tax pledge, and Bill Clinton’s effective campaign. Trump’s insistence on that point feels more like an attempt to muddy historical context to suit his broader anti-establishment posture.
Lastly, the rhetorical whiplash in the post is notable. Trump says Republicans “should probably not do it” (raise taxes) but then ends with “I’m OK if they do!!!” — a contradictory and unserious conclusion that suggests he wants credit for being flexible while signaling to his base that he still opposes taxation. The excessive exclamation marks further undermine any sense of policy seriousness.
This post is a confusing blend of symbolic populism, historical revisionism, and partisan deflection, delivered in Trump’s familiar tone of aggrieved braggadocio.
Donald Trump’s post on Truth Social—“Costs down, NO INFLATION. Very different from what the Fed, and Fake News Media, were hoping for!”—is a striking example of political messaging that sacrifices accuracy for rhetorical effect. The assertion that there is “NO INFLATION” is contradicted by publicly available data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which has continued to report year-over-year increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), particularly in core categories such as shelter, energy services, and food. While it is true that inflation has moderated from its post-pandemic peak, the economy has not reached a state of price stagnation or deflation. Declaring zero inflation ignores the current data and the lived experiences of American households who continue to face rising costs in essential areas.
Additionally, the claim that the Federal Reserve and the media were “hoping for” inflation is not only unsupported but fundamentally misunderstands the institutional role of the Fed and the press. The Federal Reserve has consistently raised interest rates and implemented contractionary monetary policy to combat inflation since 2022, actions explicitly designed to reduce inflationary pressure. Suggesting that the Fed wants higher inflation implies a level of economic sabotage that is implausible and irresponsible without evidence. As for the media, mainstream outlets have reported a broad range of economic analyses, including those that acknowledge slowing inflation, recession risks, and labor market trends. To accuse the media of deliberately rooting for inflation is an attempt to discredit any coverage that does not align with Trump’s narrative.
The use of the phrase “Fake News Media” serves as a rhetorical shield rather than a substantive critique. It preempts scrutiny by dismissing journalism wholesale rather than engaging with specific facts or interpretations. This tactic has been a hallmark of Trump’s communications strategy, but it diminishes the credibility of his claims by suggesting that all counterpoints are inherently dishonest.
Trump’s post reduces complex macroeconomic conditions to a misleading soundbite. It misrepresents inflation data, distorts the Federal Reserve’s objectives, and uses inflammatory language to avoid accountability.
Donald Trump’s Oval Office executive order signing ceremony served less as a serious policy event and more as a political stagecraft designed to signal his administration’s rejection of Biden-era environmental regulations and its broader anti-regulatory agenda. Over the course of the event, Trump signed four congressional resolutions repealing energy efficiency standards enacted during President Biden’s final months in office. These included rules affecting natural gas water heaters, walk-in coolers and freezers, household appliances, and commercial refrigeration units. Framed as vital to “common sense,” economic freedom, and job preservation, the repeals were presented with minimal policy justification and heavy reliance on anecdotal complaints and culture-war talking points. The tone of the event oscillated between informal banter, campaign-style rhetoric, and grievance-driven storytelling, giving the impression that serious policymaking was secondary to public relations performance.
Throughout the ceremony, Trump and allied lawmakers characterized the Biden-era rules as punitive, last-minute regulations imposed under the radar, often citing the fact that one was released on Christmas Eve as if that invalidated its legitimacy. This rhetorical framing implied that the prior administration acted deceptively, even though regulatory timelines often stretch across months or years and are required to go through public notice and comment periods. There was no substantive engagement with the statutory or scientific basis for the rules being repealed. For instance, the claim that gas water heater regulations constituted a “ban on natural gas” was misleading; the Biden rule in question increased efficiency standards for new gas heaters but did not eliminate gas heating. Similarly, Trump’s assertion that new appliance standards meant “you don’t get any water” from sinks and showers was a gross simplification of water conservation guidelines that still allow for adequate water pressure under federal law.
The discussion of job preservation was also thin on analysis. A representative claimed that repealing one regulation would “save 300 jobs” at a Georgia factory, but no independent economic data was provided to confirm this. Broader statements about manufacturers being forced to shut down production lines or facing financial ruin due to energy standards were repeated without evidence. There was no acknowledgment of the long-term energy cost savings to consumers, nor the environmental or public health benefits associated with reduced emissions. Instead, the administration focused on immediate business costs and discomforts, painting regulatory compliance as an elite imposition on “ordinary Americans.”
The performance aspect of the event was unmistakable. Trump repeatedly turned to lawmakers for ad hoc praise, directed members of Congress to hold up resolution documents for the cameras, and made off-topic asides, such as introducing a “golden dome” trinket that he claimed might “save your life someday.” These theatrics gave the signing ceremony the air of a campaign rally held in the Oval Office, rather than a moment of formal executive governance. His commentary was peppered with informal, sometimes incoherent remarks such as “What a ridiculous waste” when referring to water-efficient showerheads, and “Crazy, Gary. Hold that up” as a form of public validation.
In the press Q&A that followed, Trump continued this ad-libbed style. When asked about the new 10% baseline tariff on all imports—a dramatic shift in global trade policy—he affirmed that the baseline would “always” remain, though exceptions might occur if “someone does something exceptional for us.” He suggested some tariffs would remain as high as 60%, without explaining which countries or industries would be targeted or how this aligns with ongoing trade negotiations. This creates a climate of unpredictability for global markets and businesses dependent on international supply chains. Instead of offering policy rationale, he positioned tariffs as tools of leverage and vengeance for past trade imbalances, claiming the U.S. had “lost $11 trillion” under previous trade relations with China—a figure that lacks any definable basis in public economic data.
Trump delivered an erratic monologue on taxation when asked about the potential for increasing taxes on the wealthy. Initially, he stated that he “would love to do it,” framing it as a patriotic gesture, then pivoted to invoke the “read my lips” pledge by George H.W. Bush, suggesting tax increases are politically perilous. He contradicted himself midstream, saying rich people were in favor, then that Republicans wouldn’t do it, then that it might be “good politics.” No coherent proposal was articulated, and his comments ultimately obscured the administration’s tax priorities rather than clarifying them.
When questioned about the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, Trump again defaulted to a blame-shifting narrative, accusing states like California and New York of mismanagement and poor governance. He offered no policy position on whether the deduction cap would be lifted or modified, instead suggesting vaguely that “it’s being worked on” and would be resolved soon. His remarks implied that financial relief for these states would be viewed through the lens of political favoritism or punishment rather than sound fiscal policy.
Trump’s foreign policy answers were equally muddled. He vacillated between hostility and admiration when discussing China, simultaneously claiming the U.S. “is not doing business” with them, while also celebrating a recent deal and predicting many more to come. He then threw out a bizarre, uncontextualized claim that the U.S. lost “$11 trillion,” quickly revising it to “$1 trillion.” There was no breakdown of trade deficits, tariff revenue, or economic impacts. On Ukraine, when asked about a potential Russian offensive, Trump offered a blanket appeal for both sides to end what he called a “stupid war,” saying 5,000 soldiers are dying each week. This figure is likely an exaggeration, and his statement offered no diplomatic framework, strategic analysis, or moral position—just a superficial call for peace without acknowledging the causes or consequences of the conflict.
The Oval Office ceremony exemplified the Trump administration’s second-term approach to executive governance: a spectacle of deregulation presented as populist restoration. Trump’s casual tone, rhetorical imprecision, and ideological rigidity dominated the event, with little regard for the complexities of environmental policy, economic modeling, international trade, or tax reform. The event was saturated with grievance politics, performative outrage, and frequent misinformation, reinforcing the administration’s posture as both anti-establishment and anti-expertise. Far from a clear-eyed recalibration of federal regulatory policy, the event functioned as a symbolic demolition of his predecessor’s agenda, cloaked in the language of consumer liberation but devoid of rigorous policy justification.
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s latest briefing was marked by exaggerated claims, ethical red flags, and political messaging that frequently strayed from factual grounding. She opened by portraying President Trump’s upcoming Middle East visit as a triumphant return to a region he had supposedly transformed, invoking his “peace through strength” policy and claiming the total defeat of ISIS. This is revisionist history, overlooking both the contributions of previous administrations and the enduring threats of extremism. Leavitt’s rhetoric about ushering in a “golden age” in U.S.–Middle East relations was hyperbolic and unsupported by current regional realities.
The announcement of a U.S.–UK trade agreement was marred by glaring factual issues, including an absurd claim of $700 billion in ethanol exports—likely a mistaken inflation of what should have been $700 million. Her suggestion that this deal was single-handedly achieved by Trump’s negotiating prowess dismissed years of bilateral work and bipartisan trade policy continuity. Compounding this was her response to questions about Trump’s involvement in the promotion of a personal cryptocurrency. Her defense—that Trump is a successful businessman who abides by conflict-of-interest laws—failed to address the deeper ethical concerns, particularly in light of companies openly purchasing large quantities of the coin in hopes of influencing trade policy. This blurred line between personal enrichment and presidential decision-making was never satisfactorily addressed.
Leavitt also announced a controversial new program incentivizing undocumented immigrants to leave the U.S. voluntarily through the CBP Home app, offering them airfare and a $1,000 stipend. She framed the policy as a “dignified” solution that saves taxpayer money and ignored the ethical implications and due process concerns that such a system raises. More broadly, her justifications for recent firings—such as the removal of the Librarian of Congress and the dismantling of the Consumer Product Safety Commission—reflected a politicized view of federal institutions. Claiming these removals were due to DEI advocacy or disagreement with the president reinforced the perception that ideological conformity is now a condition of government service under Trump’s second term.
Leavitt repeatedly dodged specifics on foreign policy, offering vague and evasive answers on U.S. involvement in the India–Pakistan conflict, postwar Gaza administration planning, and even the president’s rumored desire to rename the Persian Gulf. Her claim that Trump had “not made a decision yet” on such a change, despite inflammatory regional reactions, exemplified a pattern of avoiding accountability for administration-driven controversy. Similarly, her response to South African refugee policy, vaguely referencing “racial persecution,” skirted the legal and diplomatic frameworks that would normally guide asylum designations.
Leavitt also failed to deliver clarity on Trump’s shifting tax policy positions. While asserting that Trump remains committed to the largest tax cut in history, she simultaneously endorsed his openness to a tax increase on the wealthy—a contradiction that underscores the administration’s incoherent fiscal messaging. Her assertion that Republicans who oppose Trump’s package will face voter accountability felt less like analysis and more like a veiled political threat.
Despite an attempt at warmth with an emotional story about Melania Trump’s work with foster children, the anecdote served largely as a sentimental interlude amid an otherwise transactional and combative briefing. She continued to lash out at the media, suggesting hypocrisy in their coverage of Trump’s private interests compared to past administrations, and dismissing questions about ethics as “ridiculous.” Her language was often imprecise, with several misspoken terms and awkward phrasing that diminished the professionalism of the presentation.
Leavitt’s briefing reflected the Trump administration’s continued preference for spectacle over substance. Rather than informing the public or responding transparently to press inquiries, the session functioned as a political performance aimed at deflecting criticism, glorifying Trump’s legacy, and promoting his ongoing business interests under the guise of governance. The blending of public office with personal gain, combined with open hostility toward institutional independence, was unmistakable and deeply concerning.
The Trump administration’s suggestion, led by senior adviser Stephen Miller, that it may suspend due process protections for unauthorized immigrants by invoking the Constitution’s “invasion” clause is a deeply troubling and legally suspect proposition. Miller’s claim that the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended due to what he calls an “invasion” by immigrants grossly misrepresents the historical and legal meaning of that term. The clause in question was intended for extraordinary circumstances, such as military invasions or internal rebellions, not for addressing immigration flows or gang-related crime. Multiple federal judges have already rejected the administration’s claim that gang activity from groups like Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua constitutes an “invasion,” underscoring the weakness of the legal rationale.
Miller’s rhetoric reflects an authoritarian impulse, where constitutional protections are portrayed as obstacles to be circumvented rather than principles to be upheld. His assertion that the judiciary is “at war” with both the executive and legislative branches is inflammatory and undermines the independence of the courts, which serve as a critical check on executive overreach. President Trump’s own comments further illustrate the administration’s disregard for constitutional norms. When pressed on the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process, Trump responded with uncertainty, saying, “I don’t know,” and deferring to unnamed lawyers. Such evasiveness is deeply irresponsible for a sitting president, whose primary duty includes upholding the Constitution.
Recent Supreme Court rulings have reaffirmed that even individuals targeted for deportation are entitled to due process, including the right to seek habeas relief. These rulings directly contradict the administration’s attempts to bypass the courts and expedite deportations without legal oversight. Furthermore, legal scholars—including Amy Coney Barrett, now a Supreme Court justice—have emphasized that suspending habeas corpus is an extraordinary and dangerous power that permits indefinite detention without judicial review. Historically, such suspensions have been rare and justified only under extreme national emergencies, such as the Civil War or after Pearl Harbor. Attempting to apply that precedent to current immigration challenges is a clear overreach and risks setting a precedent for broader constitutional erosion.
The Trump administration’s exploration of this strategy reveals a pattern of hostility toward judicial oversight and constitutional constraints. Framing immigration as a national security emergency in order to justify the suspension of fundamental rights is not only legally flawed but morally indefensible. Rather than protecting public safety, such a move would endanger civil liberties and undermine the rule of law for everyone within the United States.
Donald Trump floated the idea of lowering tariffs on Chinese goods from 145% to 80%, just ahead of high-stakes U.S.-China trade talks in Geneva. While this marks the first time he’s named a specific figure, the administration made clear it won't ease tariffs unless China makes concessions. The Geneva talks, involving U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and trade negotiator Jamieson Greer meeting with Chinese economic czar He Lifeng, are also expected to address fentanyl trafficking. China, which retaliated with its own tariffs and export restrictions, continues to oppose what it calls U.S. “bullying” tactics.
Economists and trade experts remain skeptical that any significant breakthrough will result, though there is hope for a partial agreement. Oxford Economics estimated that even at 80%, tariffs would remain historically high and continue to pressure prices and supply chains. Markets reacted cautiously, with stocks ending the week slightly down. Meanwhile, Switzerland’s economic minister expressed cautious optimism, simply noting that renewed dialogue itself was a step forward.
A federal judge in San Francisco, Susan Illston, signaled she is likely to temporarily block President Trump’s sweeping executive order aimed at restructuring the federal government, including mass layoffs and program closures. The lawsuit, brought by unions, nonprofits, and cities like Chicago and San Francisco, argues that Trump’s attempt to dismantle the government without congressional approval is unconstitutional. Illston appeared sympathetic, stating that such drastic changes require legislative cooperation, not unilateral executive action.
The plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt implementation, warning that agencies like Health and Human Services and Veterans Affairs are already carrying out the order based on directives from Trump and agencies under the influence of Elon Musk’s “DOGE team.” The administration’s defense was that the executive order simply asked agencies to assess what the law allows and act within legal bounds. However, Illston questioned whether such a broad, top-down reorganization could be shielded from judicial review or handled solely through administrative channels.
Government lawyers argued the case was improperly brought and that delays in the lawsuit undercut any claim of emergency. But plaintiffs responded that secrecy around implementation had delayed their filing. Illston suggested a TRO was needed to safeguard congressional authority, noting Trump had previously sought Congress’s cooperation for similar reforms in his first term but had not done so this time. The case reflects growing legal challenges to the boundaries of Trump’s executive power.
The Pentagon has ordered all military leaders and commands to review and remove library books addressing diversity, anti-racism, and gender issues by May 21, as part of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s broader campaign to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives from the military. A memo obtained by the Associated Press outlines that materials deemed incompatible with the military’s mission, particularly those involving “divisive concepts and gender ideology,” must be sequestered pending further guidance. A temporary Academic Libraries Committee has provided search terms such as “affirmative action,” “critical race theory,” and “transgender” to identify targeted materials.
Separately, Hegseth has directed military academies to base admissions strictly on merit, explicitly excluding race, ethnicity, or sex, while still allowing consideration of athletic ability, prior service, or prep school attendance. Service secretaries must certify compliance within 30 days.
This directive follows previous purges, such as at the U.S. Naval Academy, which removed nearly 400 books, including works on the Holocaust, civil rights, feminism, and Maya Angelou’s I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. Similar reviews have since begun at Army and Air Force libraries.
Cameron Hamilton, the acting head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), was fired on Thursday after publicly opposing the Trump administration's proposal to eliminate the agency. His dismissal, carried out by senior DHS officials at the direction of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, came just weeks before hurricane season and as Congress debates a major cut to FEMA’s budget. The firing followed Hamilton’s testimony before Congress, where he stated that dismantling FEMA was not in the best interest of the American people, contradicting President Trump’s position. Trump and his administration have pushed for shifting disaster response responsibilities to the states, with FEMA serving a limited, supportive role. Hamilton will be replaced on an interim basis by David Richardson, a DHS official from the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office.