What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
March 13, 2025 Recap
President Trump escalated his long-standing interest in acquiring Greenland by telling NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte that U.S. control of the Arctic island is essential for international security. During a meeting in the Oval Office, Trump argued that the presence of rival powers like Russia and China in Arctic waters necessitates American control over Greenland, suggesting that NATO might need to play a role in the effort. He emphasized the island’s strategic importance, citing its location along key missile defense routes and rich natural resources. When asked directly whether annexation could happen, Trump responded, “I think that will happen,” reaffirming his ambition to make Greenland part of the United States. This proposal has been repeatedly raised since taking office.
The idea was swiftly rejected by Greenland’s outgoing Prime Minister Mute Egede, who said in a Facebook post, “Enough is enough.” Jens-Frederik Nielsen, leader of the Demokraatit party, which won Greenland’s recent parliamentary election, also condemned Trump’s remarks as “inappropriate,” calling for unity in response. Denmark’s embassy and NATO did not immediately comment, but Danish officials have previously made it clear that Greenland is not for sale. Opinion polls show that most Greenlanders oppose becoming part of the U.S., though many favor eventual independence from Denmark.
Trump’s remarks also included a challenge to Denmark’s claim over Greenland, questioning its legitimacy by saying, “What happens, a boat landed there 200 years ago or something? And they say they have rights to it.” He further hinted at bolstering U.S. military presence on the island if Denmark refuses to engage in talks. The president’s comments reflect his broader, transactional approach to foreign policy, including provocative suggestions about bringing Canada into the U.S. as a 51st state and demanding greater American influence over the Panama Canal. Despite Rutte's insistence that NATO should not be dragged into the issue, Trump pressed on, insisting Greenland is vital to U.S. national security and that inaction is no longer acceptable.
The Trump administration has filed a series of emergency appeals to the Supreme Court to revive an executive order to end birthright citizenship—a policy guaranteed by the 14th Amendment and upheld for more than 150 years. Lower courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington blocked the order with nationwide injunctions, calling it unconstitutional and fundamentally at odds with American legal tradition. Instead of directly challenging the order's constitutionality, the administration is asking the Supreme Court to limit the scope of these injunctions. If granted, this would allow the policy to be enforced in areas not covered by the lawsuits currently in progress.
The administration’s argument centers on a reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Trump’s legal team claims that this excludes children born to undocumented immigrants. Courts have widely dismissed this theory, contradicting the Supreme Court’s 1898 ruling affirming birthright citizenship for nearly all born on U.S. soil. The administration contends that past interpretations of the citizenship clause have been too broad and have created incentives for illegal immigration.
The Justice Department also criticized the excessive use of universal injunctions, arguing that such rulings unfairly block executive actions from taking effect nationwide, even for individuals not involved in a lawsuit. As a fallback, the administration requested the ability to issue guidance on implementing the executive order. While the legal battle currently focuses on limiting the power of lower court injunctions, the administration is clearly laying the groundwork for a broader challenge to birthright citizenship.
Critically, this legal strategy appears to erode constitutional protections through procedural means rather than direct legal confrontation. By avoiding a direct challenge to long-standing precedent, the administration is pursuing a backdoor approach that could set troubling precedents for executive power and judicial oversight. The effort reflects more of an ideological drive to reshape immigration law than a sound legal argument, given that courts have consistently rejected this fringe interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
President Donald Trump has threatened to impose a 200% tariff on European wines, champagnes, and spirits if the European Union proceeds with its planned 50% tariff on American whiskey, set to take effect April 1. The EU's move is a retaliatory measure against Trump’s newly announced tariffs on steel and aluminum. In a social media post, Trump warned that if the EU doesn’t revoke the whiskey tariff, the U.S. would respond with steep duties on European alcohol, which he claimed would benefit American wine and champagne producers. However, the move has raised concerns across the alcohol industry and financial markets. The S&P 500 dropped 1.4% following the announcement, and European alcohol stocks also declined, signaling investor anxiety over the deepening trade tensions.
Industry leaders on both sides of the Atlantic have expressed alarm. Holly Seidewand, a New York spirits retailer, noted that the ongoing tariff war is harming not just importers but also domestic producers and retailers who rely on a global selection. Gabriel Picard, head of the French Federation of Exporters of Wines and Spirits, called the proposed 200% tariffs a “hammer blow,” warning that French wine and spirit exports to the U.S.—worth €4 billion annually—would come to a complete halt. Consumers would likely face steep price hikes, with some European alcohols potentially tripling due to the new tariffs.
The European Union has responded firmly but has left the door open to negotiations. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reaffirmed the EU's opposition to tariffs, calling them harmful to businesses and consumers, and emphasized the EU’s readiness to defend its interests. EU officials said they are prepared for any scenario and intend to respond with countermeasures worth €26 billion, covering not only spirits but also textiles, home appliances, and agricultural products. French officials have echoed this stance, declaring they will not bow to threats and will act in unison with other EU partners.
Trump’s broader trade agenda continues to unsettle global markets and alliances. Alongside the EU, Trump has imposed or announced tariffs on Canada, Mexico, China, Brazil, and South Korea, seeking what he calls "reciprocal" treatment. His comments also criticized the EU for limited U.S. auto sales and legal actions against American tech companies like Google and Meta. Meanwhile, U.S. whiskey producers urge the administration to reach a trade agreement with the EU to restore tariff-free trade. The Distilled Spirits Council noted that past EU tariffs caused a 20% drop in U.S. whiskey exports to Europe and warned that further escalation could jeopardize tens of thousands of American jobs.
In summary, Trump's tariff threats are intensifying an already volatile trade relationship with the EU, with potential fallout for both producers, retailers, and consumers. The clash over alcohol tariffs reflects broader tensions in Trump’s protectionist trade policy, which continues to draw sharp reactions from global markets and allied nations alike.
The Trump administration’s latest move to let a key sanctions waiver on Russian banks expire may appear bold on the surface. Still, in practice, it reflects a conflicted and potentially counterproductive strategy. By cutting off sanctioned Russian banks from U.S. payment systems—especially those involved in energy transactions—the administration aims to tighten the economic screws on Russia. However, the timing and execution raise serious concerns about strategic coherence and diplomatic effectiveness.
This decision creates global ripple effects, particularly in oil markets. Analysts already predict a potential $5-per-barrel spike in oil prices—an ironic consequence for a U.S. administration that has spent months touting relief at the pump as a political win. Punishing Russia by disrupting energy trade may align with longer-term sanctions goals, but it also penalizes global consumers and potentially destabilizes fragile economies that still rely on Russian exports.
More glaring is the inconsistency between this economic escalation and the administration’s stated diplomatic aims. President Trump claims to be engaged in “very serious discussions” with President Putin to broker a 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine. Yet tightening sanctions at this juncture undermines diplomatic leverage. It sends mixed signals: on one hand, it is pushing for negotiation; on the other, it is escalating financial warfare. This contradictory stance risks alienating Moscow further rather than drawing it to the table.
Furthermore, critics might question the administration’s decision to let the waiver lapse quietly without a clear policy announcement or strategy explanation. Was this a calculated pressure tactic or a bureaucratic lapse being retrofitted as tough diplomacy? Without transparency, the move risks being perceived as reactive rather than strategic.
In short, while the intent to limit Russia’s war-funding capabilities is justifiable, the method reflects a lack of diplomatic synchronization and could lead to unintended economic blowback.
The White House withdrew the nomination of former Florida congressman Dr. David Weldon to lead the CDC after it became clear he lacked enough Republican support for confirmation. The Senate health committee abruptly canceled his confirmation hearing.
Concerns centered on Weldon’s history of vaccine skepticism and alignment with anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now the U.S. health secretary. Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Bill Cassidy expressed doubts, particularly about his rejection of studies debunking links between vaccines and autism.
Weldon, who served in Congress from 1995 to 2009 and pushed for autism research, blamed his past criticism of the CDC and pharmaceutical companies for the opposition. Cassidy, chair of the health committee, said he hadn’t requested the withdrawal but criticized Weldon’s response as evidence he couldn’t handle the CDC’s demands.
Sen. Patty Murray and other Democrats also strongly opposed his views. The White House and Trump gave no public explanation for the withdrawal.
This was the first CDC director nomination subject to Senate confirmation, a requirement enacted under Biden. Weldon is now the third Trump nominee to withdraw from the pre-hearing process.
Meanwhile, two other health-related nominees — Dr. Marty Makary for FDA commissioner and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya for NIH director — advanced through committee votes.
A federal judge in California, William Alsup, has ordered six U.S. government agencies to reinstate thousands of probationary employees recently fired as part of Donald Trump’s efforts to shrink the federal workforce. The ruling affects the employees of the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Energy, Interior, and the Treasury.
Alsup found that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) overstepped its authority by directing agencies to fire workers en masse despite lacking the legal power to do so. He criticized the firings as unjust, stating some were falsely labeled as performance-related.
The judge's ruling is a significant legal blow to Trump’s broader push to reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy, which adviser Elon Musk reportedly supports. The administration is currently preparing for a second wave of mass layoffs.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Alsup overstepped his own authority and promised the administration would challenge the ruling.
The American Federation of Government Employees, representing 800,000 workers, is among the plaintiffs in the case. Union President Everett Kelley called the decision a victory against an administration intent on crippling federal agencies.
Approximately 25,000 employees have been fired, and 75,000 have accepted buyouts. Alsup's ruling could potentially affect thousands more.
Other lawsuits challenging the mass firings are ongoing, including those by 20 Democratic-led states and a proposed class action by fired employees. A federal employment board has already ordered the Agriculture Department to temporarily reinstate nearly 6,000 workers.
Source: Reuters
The Trump administration’s plan to detain migrants at Guantánamo Bay has effectively collapsed, with all 40 individuals recently held at the naval base in Cuba now relocated to the United States. According to a Defense official, there are currently zero migrants being held at the base, including 23 classified as “high threat” and 17 others previously housed at the migrant operations center. These individuals were reportedly flown by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detention facilities in Louisiana. ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) declined to comment on the transfers or future plans for the facility.
This marks the second time the administration has abruptly emptied the Guantánamo site. In February, 177 Venezuelan migrants were returned to their home country after being flown in from the U.S., and two weeks ago, another 48 migrants were also sent to Louisiana. Whether the U.S. will continue using Guantánamo for migrant detention remains unclear. The initiative, publicly launched by President Trump in January, envisioned detaining up to 30,000 individuals at the base before deportation. Then-Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called Guantánamo the “perfect spot” for this purpose and insisted it could accommodate such numbers quickly.
However, the plan never came close to meeting its goals. Fewer than 300 migrants have been held there since Trump took office, far below the promised capacity. The initiative was hindered by logistical confusion, interagency miscommunication, and legal complications. Although 195 tents were constructed, none were used due to failing to meet ICE requirements for air conditioning and electricity, and their construction was halted in February. Legal challenges have further hampered the effort, including a lawsuit by the ACLU over the lack of legal access for migrants at the site. A federal court in Washington, D.C., is set to hear arguments this week in that case, as well as a separate attempt to block the transfer of 10 migrants from the U.S. to Guantánamo. Ultimately, the administration’s high-profile proposal failed to translate into a functional or lawful detention strategy.