What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
February 12, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump's diplomatic engagement with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy marks his most significant attempt yet to address the ongoing war in Ukraine, a conflict he has repeatedly vowed to end. However, his approach raises critical concerns about feasibility, transparency, and strategic coherence. While he presents his outreach as a bold step toward peace, his lack of a clear strategy undermines the credibility of his efforts. His assertion that both leaders "want to make PEACE" oversimplifies a deeply entrenched conflict in which Russia continues to demand territorial concessions while Ukraine insists on full sovereignty restoration. Without a defined plan or clear mechanisms to enforce any agreement, Trump's emphasis on swift negotiations appears more focused on optics than substance.
Trump’s direct engagement with Putin, including a potential visit to Moscow, risks legitimizing Russia’s aggressive stance. Unlike his predecessor, Joe Biden, who avoided direct talks with Putin post-invasion, Trump’s willingness to engage without preconditions could be perceived as a sign of weakness or an implicit acceptance of Russia’s territorial gains. Moreover, European allies have already expressed concern that any negotiations must involve Ukraine directly, raising the risk that Kyiv could be sidelined in favor of a U.S.-Russia deal. While Trump portrays himself as a dealmaker, his strategy could inadvertently reinforce Russian leverage rather than secure a fair resolution for Ukraine.
Adding to the confusion, Trump’s Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, signaled a sharp shift in U.S. policy at NATO by declaring that Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders are an "unrealistic objective." This stance effectively concedes to Russian occupation while downplaying Ukraine’s NATO membership aspirations. Though the administration speaks of providing "security guarantees," it simultaneously rules out deploying U.S. troops, raising doubts about how these guarantees would be enforced. This policy shift aligns more closely with Russian demands than Ukrainian interests, potentially weakening Kyiv’s bargaining power and forcing it to accept a compromised peace.
Trump also appears to be tying Ukraine’s security to economic incentives, with his administration exploring U.S. investments in Ukraine’s mineral sector. While this could provide economic stability, it shifts Ukraine’s leverage from military support to commercial transactions, reducing its ability to secure firm defense commitments. Given Russia’s history of using economic dependencies as leverage over other nations, this approach risks creating vulnerabilities rather than strengthening Ukraine’s long-term security.
While early diplomatic overtures, including a prisoner swap, suggest a potential thaw in U.S.-Russia relations, they do not necessarily translate into meaningful progress on Ukraine. With Russia continuing to make slow but steady military advances and Kyiv desperately needing stronger defense commitments, any rushed negotiation—especially one framed around U.S.-Russia deal-making—risks favoring Moscow. Though symbolically significant, Trump's diplomacy lacks the clear guardrails to prevent Russia from dictating terms. His eagerness to engage with Putin and policy contradictions within his administration threatens to weaken Ukraine’s position and undermine Western unity. Though his efforts may yield short-term diplomatic breakthroughs, the absence of a well-defined strategy raises concerns that his approach could lead to an imposed settlement that benefits Moscow more than Kyiv.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has revoked $80 million in migrant aid payments to New York City, just days after Trump administration officials announced a broader funding suspension for the city’s migrant services. City Comptroller Brad Lander revealed that the funds were part of a previously promised $237 million reimbursement for expenses already incurred by the city, which has spent around $7 billion on migrant aid since 2022.
Lander remarked, "The theft of our funds straight from our bank account is a betrayal to all New York City residents," during a press conference outside his office in Lower Manhattan. He emphasized that the funding limit was set at $12.50 per individual.
The reversal followed unsubstantiated claims by billionaire Elon Musk, recently tasked by Trump with reviewing federal spending, who alleged that the money was used for luxury hotels and violated the law. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem also took credit for the move, claiming, without evidence, that FEMA officials had improperly allocated the funds. Four FEMA officials, including the agency’s chief financial officer, were reportedly terminated over the issue.
Mayor Eric Adams’ office has launched an investigation and is seeking to recover the funds. The situation coincides with the Department of Justice’s decision to dismiss a corruption case against Adams, citing concerns that it interfered with his re-election bid and cooperation with Trump’s immigration policies. The case may be reconsidered after the election. Critics argue that the Trump administration now holds significant leverage over Adams, who has ordered his administration to avoid public criticism of the president.
Lander, a Democratic primary challenger to Adams, called the funding clawback a test of the mayor’s independence. He also questioned how federal officials were able to retrieve the funds from the city’s accounts, likening it to a credit card company reversing a payment.
Today’s briefing by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt exemplified a highly partisan and combative communication strategy that prioritizes political narratives over substantive policy explanations, blurring the line between government communications and campaign-style rhetoric and raising concerns about credibility, transparency, and governance. Throughout the briefing, Leavitt repeatedly praised President Trump’s leadership, using phrases like “strong,” “tough,” and “energetic,” but failed to provide substantive details on key policy initiatives. Instead of outlining specific strategies regarding foreign policy, economic measures, or judicial matters, she relied on broad, unsubstantiated claims that reinforce political messaging rather than inform the public.
One of the most striking issues in this briefing is the vagueness surrounding major policy initiatives, particularly in foreign relations. Leavitt spoke broadly about President Trump’s efforts to negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine war but provided little concrete information about the administration’s diplomatic approach. There is no discussion of potential peace terms, security guarantees, or strategic considerations, only repeated assertions that Trump is a “master negotiator.” Similarly, on economic policy, she claimed that lowering interest rates will help curb inflation—an argument that contradicts standard economic principles—without explaining how the administration believes this approach will succeed. Instead of addressing the complexity of economic conditions, she shifted blame entirely onto the previous administration, ignoring external factors and the intricacies of monetary policy.
The briefing also leaned heavily into campaign-style messaging, frequently citing polling numbers to emphasize Trump’s popularity while dismissing opposition as politically motivated. The repeated reference to the “77 million Americans” who elected Trump serves as a rallying cry rather than an informative statement. Focusing on “executing campaign promises” and attacking past administrations suggested that the briefing was more about reinforcing political loyalty than providing government transparency. This is further exemplified in her framing independent judicial rulings as “judicial activism” and an “abuse of the rule of law.” By portraying legal challenges as partisan attacks rather than legitimate checks on executive power, the administration signals a disregard for the judiciary’s role in governance.
Another concerning aspect of the briefing is its handling of media relations and transparency. The decision to bar an Associated Press reporter over terminology disputes (such as referring to the “Gulf of America” instead of the “Gulf of Mexico”) is a clear attempt to exert linguistic control over the media. Leavitt’s insistence that the administration will “hold lies accountable” suggests an effort to dictate media narratives rather than engage in open dialogue. This raises significant First Amendment concerns, particularly given the administration’s simultaneous emphasis on free speech when defending figures like Elon Musk. The contradiction is striking—while the administration criticizes “big tech censorship,” it simultaneously punishes journalists who do not conform to its preferred terminology.
Ethical concerns also arise regarding Musk’s influence within the administration. Leavitt acknowledged Musk’s role as a “special government employee” but dismissed any potential conflicts of interest, saying Trump will simply tell Musk “not to do that” if an issue arises. This casual approach to ethical oversight is troubling, particularly given Musk’s broad role in overseeing government efficiency initiatives. While the administration claims unprecedented transparency, its handling of government waste appears selective. Leavitt highlighted specific spending cuts that align with Trump’s political agenda rather than providing a comprehensive fiscal accountability framework. The use of the “DOGE Workforce Optimization Initiative” as a tool for eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) contracts and other disfavored expenditures suggests that these efforts are more about advancing ideological objectives than genuinely reducing waste.
The Trump administration is rescinding a Biden-era memo that stated colleges could violate federal anti-sex discrimination laws if they failed to provide equal opportunities for female student-athletes in name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation.
Craig Trainor, the acting assistant secretary for civil rights, criticized the Biden guidance as "overly burdensome" and "profoundly unfair." The Biden administration’s Education Department had argued that NIL payments should be distributed equitably between male and female athletes under Title IX, a position that drew attention from college athletics leaders. However, the guidance was non-binding.
The Trump administration rejects this interpretation, arguing that Title IX does not mandate proportional NIL compensation and that there is no clear legal basis for requiring schools to allocate athlete revenues based on gender equity.
Attorney General Pam Bondi held her first press conference on immigration, which reflected a highly charged, partisan stance that framed the issue in stark, combative terms. While she raised concerns about violent crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, her rhetoric relied heavily on emotional appeals, particularly through the tragic story of Angel Mom Tammy Nobles. While the pain of victims' families was undeniably real and deserving of attention, Bondi’s argument lacked balance, failing to acknowledge broader data on crime rates among undocumented immigrants compared to U.S. citizens.
Her speech was structured around an aggressive legal stance. She announced lawsuits against New York state officials for policies that allegedly obstructed federal immigration enforcement. However, she offered little legal analysis to substantiate the claim that these "green light laws" were unconstitutional. Instead, she framed them as unequivocal threats to public safety without addressing counterarguments from state officials who argued that these laws improved community trust and cooperation with law enforcement.
Additionally, Bondi’s approach conflated all undocumented immigrants with violent criminals, an oversimplification that misrepresented the reality of immigration and crime. Her assertion that millions of violent criminals had flooded into the U.S. was unsubstantiated, playing into fear-based narratives rather than policy-driven solutions. Furthermore, her reference to Elon Musk and his grievances against government spending seemed tangential and politically opportunistic rather than legally relevant.
Bondi's remarks were more of a political rallying cry than a nuanced legal argument. While public safety and immigration enforcement were legitimate concerns, her speech lacked the depth and objectivity needed for a constructive policy discussion. Instead, it prioritized spectacle, vilification, and sweeping generalizations over substantive legal reasoning and practical solutions.
Tulsi Gabbard, a former U.S. representative with limited intelligence experience, was confirmed as the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) in a 52-48 Senate vote, mainly along party lines. The only Republican to oppose her was Senator Mitch McConnell, while no Democrats or independents supported her nomination. Gabbard, once a Democrat, faced bipartisan scrutiny over her past statements perceived as sympathetic to U.S. adversaries and her lack of experience managing the intelligence community’s $100 billion budget. She had never served on an intelligence committee or worked within the intelligence sector during her four terms in the House. Despite concerns over potential politicization of intelligence under her leadership, Republican senators backed her, influenced by political pressure from former President Donald Trump and his ally Elon Musk. Critics also questioned her stance on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, her past meeting with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, and her defense of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. While some Republicans were initially hesitant, they ultimately supported her after she assured them of her commitment to intelligence professionals and unbiased reporting. Gabbard’s confirmation starkly contrasts previous DNI nominees, who typically had extensive intelligence experience and bipartisan backing. Now tasked with overseeing the intelligence community amid global challenges and Trump’s aggressive foreign policy agenda, Gabbard must work to reassure allies and navigate expectations of reducing the DNI’s role within the government.
President Trump’s executive order, "One Voice for America’s Foreign Relations," establishes a firm centralization of foreign policy authority under the executive branch, reinforcing the President’s direct control over the State Department’s workforce and policy execution. While the order asserts constitutional authority under Article II, it raises critical concerns about its implications for diplomatic professionalism, institutional independence, and the long-term stability of U.S. foreign policy.
One of the most concerning aspects of this order is its potential to overcentralize decision-making and politicize the Foreign Service. By explicitly mandating that all foreign policy implementation align strictly with the President’s directives, the order may erode the professional autonomy of career diplomats. The possibility of disciplinary action, including termination, for those deemed insufficiently loyal to the administration could create a culture of political conformity rather than informed, expertise-driven decision-making. This approach risks turning foreign service professionals into political operatives rather than independent advisors who serve the country’s interests beyond any single administration.
Additionally, the order’s provisions for reforming recruitment, performance evaluation, and retention standards could significantly weaken institutional knowledge within the State Department. Diplomatic effectiveness relies on experience, historical understanding, and nonpartisan analysis—qualities that may be deprioritized in favor of ideological alignment with the administration. While every President has the right to appoint officials who support their policies, this directive suggests a broader restructuring that could undermine the long-term stability of U.S. diplomacy. The emphasis on loyalty over expertise may reduce the government’s ability to craft nuanced, informed foreign policies.
Legally, the order also introduces potential conflicts by granting the Secretary of State “sole and exclusive discretion” over key reforms, which could clash with existing statutory protections for career diplomats and civil servants. While the order claims to be consistent with applicable laws, its vague language leaves room for interpretations that may contradict established legal protections, particularly regarding due process in employment decisions. The increased concentration of power within the executive branch could disrupt the balance between political leadership and institutional governance, leading to bureaucratic uncertainty and legal challenges.
Beyond legal and administrative concerns, this executive order risks making U.S. foreign policy more volatile. Requiring absolute adherence to presidential directives increases the likelihood of drastic policy reversals with each new administration. Stable and effective diplomacy often depends on continuity, trust with allies, and bipartisan collaboration. If the Foreign Service becomes overly politicized, it could weaken America’s credibility on the global stage, making negotiations more difficult and reducing the effectiveness of long-term strategic commitments.
While the President has broad constitutional authority over foreign policy, this order appears to prioritize centralized control at the expense of diplomatic expertise and institutional stability. Demanding unwavering loyalty rather than relying on professional judgment risks undermining U.S. diplomacy's effectiveness and weakening the State Department's institutional integrity. The success of American foreign policy depends on balancing executive authority with professional expertise. This order threatens to tip that balance too far toward political obedience, ultimately harming U.S. interests in the long run.
A federal appeals court has denied the Trump administration's request to lift a lower court order that blocked the president from unilaterally freezing billions in federal funding, including loans, grants, and financial assistance. In a two-page order, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to grant an immediate administrative stay, deferring to the lower district court for clarification. The three-judge panel, all appointed by Democratic presidents, found that the Department of Justice (DOJ) failed to cite legal authority or demonstrate harm from the lower court’s ruling. The Trump administration sought an immediate pause on the lower court’s temporary restraining order, arguing that the district court was overstepping its power by restricting the executive branch’s authority over federal funds. The legal battle stems from a decision by a federal judge in Rhode Island, who ruled that the administration likely violated the Constitution by attempting to freeze funding through a rescinded directive from the Office of Management and Budget. Attorneys general from 23 states oppose the appeal, arguing that allowing the freeze would cause widespread harm to recipients of federal funding, affecting healthcare, education, and infrastructure. The appeals court will consider issuing a stay pending appeal later in the week. The lower court's ruling remains in place, preventing the Trump administration from withholding funds without judicial oversight.
President Trump has been unanimously elected as the new Chairman of the Board of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, fulfilling a promise he made the previous week. In a post on Truth Social, Trump expressed his enthusiasm for the role and praised the newly appointed board members, which include Usha Vance, Susie Wiles, Dan Scavino, and several others. His election follows his controversial decision to remove 18 Democratic appointees from the board, an unprecedented action in the center’s history. In her departure statement, former Kennedy Center President Deborah Rutter emphasized the institution's mission to uphold American artistic expression and democratic values, underscoring the importance of fostering and protecting the arts. Trump, who has notably never attended a performance at the Kennedy Center and skipped the Kennedy Center Honors in 2018, has now taken control of the institution's leadership, appointing Richard Grenell as interim executive director. Previously, the board maintained a bipartisan composition under philanthropist David M. Rubenstein, but Trump’s actions mark a significant shift in its governance. The Kennedy Center acknowledged the legality of the board changes while noting that such a move had never been undertaken before.
A federal judge in Boston has lifted a temporary block on the Trump administration’s controversial "Fork in the Road" program, which offers millions of federal workers the option to resign while still receiving pay through September. U.S. District Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. had initially halted the program after labor unions sued, arguing the administration lacked legal authority to make such an offer. However, in his ruling on Wednesday, O’Toole determined that the unions lacked standing, as they were not directly affected by the policy but only experienced indirect consequences such as resource allocation and potential membership losses. With the restraining order dissolved, the program is set to continue. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt welcomed the decision, calling it a legal victory for the administration. At the same time, union leader Everett Kelley expressed disappointment but emphasized that the fight for fair treatment of public employees is not over. The ruling did not address the broader legality of the program itself. The "deferred resignation" plan was introduced via email on January 28, with an estimated 5%-10% of federal employees expected to accept, potentially saving the government $100 billion. As of last week’s temporary halt, 60,000 employees had opted in. Despite the program’s broad eligibility, certain roles, including military personnel and national security positions, were excluded. Legal experts remain skeptical about the offer's validity, with concerns that the administration could cancel it, leaving employees without compensation.