What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
February 19, 2025 Recap
President Trump’s remarks at the Miami Future Investment Initiative (FII) Summit were a mix of self-congratulatory statements, economic assertions, policy promises, and political rhetoric. His speech lacked coherence, factual consistency, and structure. He framed the U.S. as a booming economy under his leadership, claiming that markets were rebounding due to his policies and that international investments were surging. He also engaged global leaders in attendance, particularly Saudi officials and Elon Musk, in an attempt to reinforce his credibility in international business circles.
However, the speech suffered from a lack of organization, frequently jumping from topic to topic without clear transitions. At one moment, he was discussing cryptocurrency and economic optimism, only to shift abruptly to immigration, alleged voter fraud, and what he called "wasteful" foreign aid spending. Additionally, his long personal anecdotes—such as the story of landing Air Force One in darkness or his reflections on his father’s work ethic—detracted from the event's main themes. The speech felt more like a campaign rally than a structured economic keynote.
Trump also made a series of dubious or outright false claims. He declared that he had won the 2024 election in a "landslide" despite receiving just under 50% of the popular votes cast. He asserted that 85% of U.S. counties voted for him, which is statistically implausible. He alleged that millions of Social Security payments were going to people aged 140 years or older—an unverified claim. His economic boasts were exaggerated, particularly regarding stock market surges, inflation reversals, and job creation supposedly tied to his presidency. Many of these claims lacked supporting data and seemed designed more for political impact than economic accuracy.
The speech was also heavy on self-praise and grievances. Rather than remaining focused on investment opportunities and economic policies, he spent significant time celebrating his personal achievements—his real estate projects, his television career, and his past tax cuts. He repeatedly attacked the media, the Biden administration, and what he called “rigged elections.” While such rhetoric may resonate with his political base, it was misaligned with an investment summit where business leaders likely expected a more policy-driven approach.
Beyond this, his policy proposals lacked depth. He promised sweeping tax cuts, deregulation, and infrastructure improvements but failed to outline specific plans for their implementation. His energy policy stance ("drill, baby, drill") was overly simplistic and ignored the complexities of global energy markets and environmental concerns. While he emphasized his commitment to “America First” economic policies, there was little substantive discussion on how he would tackle inflation, trade deficits, or technological innovation beyond vague promises.
Another contradiction in his speech was his stance on military strength and global peace. He claimed he was a peacemaker yet boasted about expanding military power and imposing maximum pressure on Iran. He criticized endless wars while positioning the U.S. as an aggressive global force. His remarks on Ukraine and Russia were also inconsistent—he suggested that Europe should take responsibility for Ukraine’s defense, yet simultaneously took credit for ceasefire negotiations.
Trump's speech was nothing short of a political rallying cry, which has become typical and predictable in his public remarks. However, its lack of factual precision, frequent diversions, and excessive self-praise undermined its credibility.
President Trump escalated his criticism of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, calling him a "dictator" and blaming Ukraine for the war with Russia. His comments followed Zelensky’s assertion that Trump was influenced by Russian disinformation after Ukraine was excluded from U.S.-Russia talks in Saudi Arabia.
Trump's remarks sparked backlash from European leaders, including German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, and Swedish PM Ulf Kristersson, who defended Zelensky’s legitimacy as a wartime leader. Ukraine has been under martial law since Russia’s 2022 invasion, preventing elections.
Trump further accused Zelensky of mismanaging Ukraine, saying millions had "unnecessarily died" and that the U.S. was working on ending the war through negotiations with Russia. Meanwhile, Zelensky argued that the U.S. had helped Putin break out of international isolation and rejected Trump's interest in Ukraine’s rare minerals due to a lack of security guarantees.
Trump also downplayed Ukraine’s importance to the U.S., suggesting the war was primarily Europe’s concern. European leaders condemned his stance, and the EU announced additional sanctions on Russia, targeting its aluminum industry and financial institutions.
In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed willingness to meet Trump, and Ukraine’s former PM Arseniy Yatsenyuk warned that Trump's statements played into Russia’s hands.
The Trump administration has halted New York City's congestion pricing tolls in a politically motivated move that prioritizes short-term optics over sustainable urban planning. The tolls charged most vehicles $9 to enter Manhattan’s core to reduce traffic and fund mass transit. U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy rescinded federal approval, calling the toll a burden on working-class Americans and small businesses. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) immediately filed a lawsuit to keep the program alive, and Governor Kathy Hochul stated it would continue while the legal battle unfolds.
President Trump celebrated the decision with a post on the official White House Facebook page declaring the toll program “dead” and ending his post with “LONG LIVE THE KING!” alongside an image of himself in a crown. Hochul pushed back, rejecting the idea of Trump as a "king."
The congestion pricing plan, modeled after similar programs in cities like London and Singapore, was intended to raise funds for transit improvements while reducing traffic and pollution. Critics argue the tolls burden suburban commuters, but congestion pricing is a proven strategy used globally to improve traffic flow and fund infrastructure. Without it, New York may resort to fare hikes or regressive taxes that disproportionately harm lower-income residents. The MTA’s lawsuit against the federal government could restore the program. Still, the repeal sets a troubling precedent, suggesting that critical urban policies can be undone at the whim of political leaders. Hochul previously delayed its rollout but revived it post-election with a reduced fee.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams, once a supporter, has avoided taking a strong stance amid political tensions. As legal and political battles continue, the program’s future remains uncertain.
The consequences of this repeal extend beyond New York. The move sets a dangerous precedent, signaling that a president with personal or political grievances can undo major infrastructure initiatives. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s lawsuit against the federal government may offer some hope of reversing the decision, but the legal battle will take time. Meanwhile, the uncertainty surrounding the policy could discourage other U.S. cities from pursuing similar congestion reduction measures.
The Trump administration is reinstating certain federal job positions and rehiring essential employees, highlighting the administration’s erratic approach to federal workforce reductions and revealing contradictions between sweeping job cuts and the subsequent selective rehiring of critical personnel. Elon Musk’s admission that mistakes will be made underscores the haphazard nature of these cuts, suggesting a lack of foresight in determining which roles are essential before implementing layoffs.
Criticism from figures like Sen. Ben Ray Luján reinforces concerns that the administration is prioritizing ideological goals—reducing government size—over functional efficiency. The conflicting perspectives among Republican lawmakers further illustrate the tension within the party. Some, like Sen. Roger Marshall, embrace a break-it-first mentality, while others, such as Sen. Susan Collins, scramble to mitigate the damage done to essential services.
The reinstatement of USDA scientists tracking bird flu and National Nuclear Security Administration workers suggests a reactionary approach to governing, where practical necessities eventually override ideological ambitions. Meanwhile, cuts to agencies like the NIH and HUD raise alarms about the long-term consequences of these decisions, with experts like Dr. Matthew Brown warning of disruptions to lifesaving research.
Trump’s assertion that the administration will continue pursuing "waste, fraud, and abuse" despite already rehiring key workers suggests a commitment to fiscal austerity that is more symbolic than strategic. The claim that these efforts have saved $55 billion remains unverified. It lacks transparency, making it difficult to assess whether these cuts genuinely reduce inefficiencies or create new costs through the need for course corrections.
The CDC has abruptly ended its successful "Wild to Mild" flu vaccination campaign amid one of the worst flu seasons in 15 years. The campaign was specifically designed to address declining flu vaccination rates, a major public health challenge since the COVID-19 pandemic. By using an engaging, accessible analogy—juxtaposing wild and tame animals—it successfully communicated that even if a flu vaccine doesn't prevent infection, it can significantly reduce the severity of illness.
Yet, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) advised against continuing the campaign without clear justification. The decision coincided with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s first full week leading HHS, raising questions about political influence on public health initiatives. Kennedy is known for his history of anti-vaccine rhetoric, making the timing of this move particularly troubling.
The campaign had been well-received, helping combat declining flu vaccination rates post-COVID-19, particularly among high-risk groups like pregnant women and children. It had significant reach, including digital ads, public transit displays in four major cities, and over 60 million total impressions. Experts in public health, including the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, praised it as a clear and effective strategy.
This decision is not just bureaucratic—it has real-world consequences. With flu hospitalizations surging, discontinuing a successful awareness effort may leave vulnerable populations—such as pregnant women and children—without crucial encouragement to get vaccinated. The lack of transparency surrounding the rationale for pulling the campaign only fuels concerns that public health messaging is being shaped by political motivations rather than scientific evidence.
President Trump signed an executive order that aims to stop federal benefits from going to undocumented migrants. The order presents itself as a forceful argument for stricter immigration controls and preserving federal benefits for U.S. citizens. However, it is highly partisan, employing a one-sided and emotionally charged narrative that lacks nuance and a balanced discussion of policy implications. The language is particularly politicized, framing immigration through a stark “us vs. them” perspective. Terms such as “illegal aliens,” “open borders agenda,” and “left-wing groups” are politically loaded, making it clear that this is not a neutral policy update but a rhetorical appeal designed to rally support from a particular base. Additionally, it paints the issue in absolute terms, implying that previous administrations, specifically the Biden administration, enabled illegal immigration while President Trump single-handedly rectified the crisis. This oversimplification ignores the bipartisan nature of immigration policy and the complexities involved.
The statement selectively uses data, citing statistics from sources such as the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) without providing necessary context. Both CIS and FAIR are known for their anti-immigration stance, raising concerns about bias. The claim that illegal immigration has cost taxpayers $451 billion since 2021 is presented without clarifying the methodology or considering the economic contributions of immigrants, such as tax payments and labor force participation. By omitting counterarguments—such as studies showing that undocumented immigrants contribute billions in taxes or the economic impact of labor shortages in sectors reliant on immigrant workers—the statement provides an incomplete and potentially misleading analysis.
Beyond data concerns, the policy proposals themselves lack crucial details. The directive for federal agencies to take “corrective action” against programs benefiting undocumented immigrants does not specify legal mechanisms or feasibility. It remains unclear how eligibility verification improvements will be implemented, whether restricting funds to sanctuary cities will withstand legal challenges, or what suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) means for international relations and humanitarian obligations. Moreover, while the statement extensively details enforcement measures—such as border wall construction, mass deportations, and indefinite detentions—it fails to address the root causes of migration, including economic instability, violence, and political unrest in migrants' home countries. Without addressing these fundamental issues, enforcement alone will unlikely provide a sustainable solution.
Some proposed measures raise serious legal and constitutional concerns. The claim that automatic citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants has been “ended” suggests a challenge to birthright citizenship, which is protected under the 14th Amendment. Additionally, the idea of detaining criminal immigrants in Guantanamo Bay introduces human rights and legal questions about indefinite detention without trial. These proposals could face significant legal pushback, further complicating their implementation.
The order falls short of a comprehensive, fact-based policy discussion. It relies on selective data, charged language, and broad claims that lack detailed policy mechanisms. While it outlines an aggressive enforcement approach, it fails to engage with the complexities of immigration, economic impacts, and legal constraints.
President Trump issued an executive order titled Implementing The President’s “Department Of Government Efficiency Deregulatory Initiative. This EO presents itself as a necessary corrective to bureaucratic overreach, aiming to "deconstruct the administrative state" and restore the constitutional separation of powers. However, while the goal of regulatory reform is not inherently problematic, the EO is framed in broad ideological terms rather than precise legal mandates, raising concerns about its implementation and legal soundness. The directive to agencies to identify and potentially rescind regulations based on vague and subjective criteria—such as whether they “harm the national interest” or are not based on the “best reading” of statutory authority—creates room for arbitrary enforcement. This could lead to agencies bypassing legally enacted regulations not through formal rulemaking or judicial review but through executive discretion alone. Ironically, in attempting to curb what it sees as federal overreach, this EO itself risks executive overreach by encouraging selective enforcement of laws based on political preferences rather than statutory obligations.
The practical challenges of implementing this EO are also significant. It sets an aggressive 60-day deadline for agencies to conduct a sweeping review of all regulations under their jurisdiction, an unrealistic timeline given the complexity of federal rulemaking. Furthermore, the EO assigns this responsibility to newly created “DOGE Teams” without providing clear procedural guidance on their operation. This lack of structure increases the risk of rushed or politically motivated decision-making rather than a thorough, legally defensible regulatory review. Moreover, the directive to agencies to "de-prioritize" enforcement actions unless a regulation aligns with the administration’s policy introduces instability, undermining businesses and agencies' predictability to operate effectively.
The order's inconsistency is further exacerbated by the broad exemption of regulations related to the military, national security, homeland security, foreign affairs, and immigration. If the stated goal is to ensure all federal regulations adhere to constitutional principles, excluding entire sectors from scrutiny contradicts that purpose. Instead, this selective application suggests a politically motivated deregulatory push, particularly in economic and environmental policy, rather than a neutral effort to ensure lawful governance.
Ultimately, while the EO purports to reinforce the rule of law, it instead fosters ambiguity, regulatory instability, and the risk of executive overreach. It prioritizes political expediency over procedural integrity, granting agencies broad discretion to ignore established regulations without clear legal justification. By encouraging unilateral reinterpretation of statutory authority and undermining consistent regulatory enforcement, this EO may not strengthen constitutional governance but weaken it, increasing legal uncertainty and making federal policymaking more volatile.
I’m amazed at how you write this column daily with such precision and documentation. Thank you for your excellent work.