What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
February 13, 2025 Recap
President Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi held a press conference at the White House, showcasing the growing strategic and economic partnership between the United States and India. While the event successfully reaffirmed the importance of bilateral ties, it also revealed significant gaps in policy execution, trade negotiations, and diplomatic nuance. The discussion covered a broad range of topics, including military cooperation, economic trade relations, counterterrorism efforts, and technological collaboration. However, Trump's remarks often veered into grandiose rhetoric and lacked specificity, while Modi’s speech, though more structured, also leaned heavily on symbolic gestures rather than concrete commitments.
One of the key takeaways from the conference was the emphasis on military and defense cooperation. Trump announced an increase in arms sales to India, including the potential sale of F-35 stealth fighters, which would mark a significant shift in defense relations. The Quad security alliance—comprising the U.S., India, Japan, and Australia—was reaffirmed as a critical pillar of regional stability in the Indo-Pacific, particularly in countering China's growing influence. While these commitments sound promising, they also raise questions about the practical execution and long-term strategy. The F-35 deal, for instance, would require significant diplomatic maneuvering, as India has historically maintained defense ties with Russia and only recently started shifting toward U.S.-made military equipment. Additionally, while Trump positioned this as a historic move, it was already in line with previous U.S. policies encouraging stronger defense ties with India.
Trade relations were another central point of the discussion, with Trump repeatedly criticizing India's high tariffs on American goods. He cited the 30-70% tariffs on U.S. cars as an example of an imbalanced trade relationship and announced the beginning of negotiations to address these disparities. However, his approach to resolving these issues remained vague. Rather than proposing a structured trade agreement, he leaned on “reciprocal tariffs,” implying that whatever India imposes, the U.S. will impose in return. This strategy may resonate with his base but lacks the nuance required for effective trade diplomacy. Modi, in contrast, provided a more detailed vision, setting a target of increasing bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030 and emphasizing India’s commitment to reducing trade barriers. While this is an ambitious goal, it remains unclear how India plans to implement these reductions and whether it will fully meet U.S. demands for a more level playing field.
Another key announcement focused on energy collaboration, particularly in oil, gas, and nuclear power. Trump emphasized that the U.S. aims to become India's leading energy supplier, particularly in liquefied natural gas (LNG), and highlighted ongoing efforts to integrate U.S. nuclear technology into India's energy sector. This aligns with India's long-term energy diversification strategy, but as with many of Trump's remarks, the details on how this would be executed were lacking. Modi's speech acknowledged India's interest in U.S. energy, including developing small modular nuclear reactors. Still, it remained unclear whether these discussions would lead to concrete deals or simply serve as political talking points.
Counterterrorism efforts were also addressed, with Trump announcing the extradition of a suspect involved in the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks. His broader remarks on radical Islamic terrorism lacked diplomatic tact and seemed more designed for political optics than strategic policy discussion. Modi expressed gratitude for the extradition but did not engage with Trump's broader framing of terrorism, likely to avoid alienating certain international partners. Additionally, while both leaders spoke of working together to combat terrorism, neither outlined specific new initiatives beyond existing frameworks.
One of the most politically charged moments of the press conference came when Trump addressed U.S. relations with India under the Biden administration. He claimed that India had a poor relationship with Biden, citing oil and gas sales restrictions as an example. However, this oversimplifies the reality. While trade tensions have existed under multiple administrations, Biden has continued to strengthen defense and technology partnerships with India, particularly through initiatives like the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework and semiconductor collaboration. By framing the issue as a stark contrast between his administration and Biden’s, Trump ignored the nuances of ongoing U.S.-India cooperation.
Trump’s speech was also characterized by its disorganized and repetitive nature, making it difficult to follow a clear policy narrative. His remarks often veered into unsubstantiated hyperbole, with statements like “the whole world was set back over the last four years” and “we’ve taken care of it in three weeks.” These comments do little to reassure international partners about the stability and consistency of U.S. foreign policy. His response to concerns about engaging with adversaries like Putin and Xi over traditional allies was particularly weak, as he failed to provide a clear strategy for balancing diplomatic efforts between rivals and allies.
In contrast, Modi’s speech was more structured and focused, though it still leaned heavily on symbolic messaging. His play on Trump’s “MAGA” slogan by introducing “MIGA” (Make India Great Again) was a clever rhetorical device that reinforced his alignment with Trump’s leadership style. He also emphasized India’s technological ambitions, particularly in artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and rare earth minerals. However, like Trump, he did not provide specific details on implementing these collaborations. His remarks on India's role in global peace efforts, particularly in Ukraine, were more measured, emphasizing India's position as a neutral mediator. However, his assertion that India is “not neutral” but instead “taking the side of peace” felt like an attempt to balance India’s geopolitical stance without fully committing to either side.
While this press conference succeeded in reaffirming the U.S.-India partnership, it fell short of offering a clear, actionable roadmap for the future. The economic and security discussions remained largely surface-level, with Trump's speech relying more on grandiose statements than substantive policy details. Modi's more structured approach provided a contrast, emphasizing long-term collaboration and mutual development. The event underscores the importance of U.S.-India ties but leaves critical gaps in execution and policy clarity, making it more of a political performance than a thorough diplomatic engagement.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services, representing a deeply concerning shift in public health leadership, prioritizing political loyalty over expertise. Kennedy, a longtime anti-vaccine activist with no formal background in medicine or public health, now oversees critical agencies such as the CDC, NIH, and FDA—institutions that rely on scientific credibility and public trust to function effectively.
His nomination was met with fierce resistance, particularly from Democrats and public health experts, who warned that his history of spreading vaccine misinformation could erode confidence in life-saving medical interventions. Even Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, a polio survivor, opposed Kennedy, citing the dangers of revisiting settled scientific debates and allowing conspiracy theories to influence policy.
Despite initial skepticism from within his own party, Kennedy’s confirmation was secured largely due to Republican alignment with Donald Trump’s endorsement. Physician Senator Bill Cassidy played a pivotal role in advancing Kennedy’s nomination after striking a vague deal for "collaboration," a move that raised questions about whether policy decisions would be based on science or political expediency.
Democratic leaders, including Senator Chuck Schumer and Senator Ron Wyden, denounced Kennedy’s appointment, warning of long-term damage to public health. Wyden labeled him "the least qualified nominee" for such a crucial role, while Schumer argued that many Republicans only voted to confirm Kennedy under pressure from Trump.
Kennedy’s rhetoric during his confirmation hearings focused on broad claims about America’s declining health, but his track record suggests he is more interested in challenging mainstream medical consensus than in implementing evidence-based policies. His leadership at HHS threatens to undermine decades of progress in public health, and his confirmation raises serious concerns about the politicization of critical health institutions.
President Trump’s executive order establishing the Make America Healthy Again Commission lacks specificity, raises concerns about execution, and reflects a broader ideological stance that could undermine scientific credibility.
The executive order falls short in outlining concrete, actionable steps to improve health outcomes. The language remains vague, relying on general statements such as "ensuring the availability of expanded treatment options" and "advising the President on best practices." It fails to offer a clear framework for addressing systemic issues such as healthcare accessibility, economic disparities in nutrition, or regulatory oversight of harmful industry practices. While the commission is tasked with assessing environmental, dietary, and technological factors in chronic disease, it provides no guarantee that its findings will be grounded in evidence-based policymaking. The order’s focus on investigating “corporate influence or cronyism” also rings hollow, given that it does not acknowledge the significant role of corporate lobbying in shaping public health policies—particularly within the pharmaceutical and processed food industries.
A major concern is the order’s framing of “restoring the integrity of science” by eliminating “undue industry influence” and promoting transparency. This language raises the possibility that the administration is positioning itself to discredit established scientific consensus in favor of alternative health narratives. The emphasis on "gold-standard research" to determine "why Americans are getting sick" suggests a potential skepticism of existing research, leaving room for politically motivated reinterpretations of health data. Additionally, the commission’s examination of electromagnetic radiation and food additives as potential causes of chronic disease suggests a willingness to entertain scientifically dubious claims, potentially diverting attention from well-supported public health strategies.
The composition of the commission also raises concerns. While it includes relevant officials such as the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Director of the CDC, it also features members from economic and budgetary agencies with little direct expertise in health. Conspicuously absent is direct participation from independent medical professionals, public health experts, or patient advocacy groups. This exclusion raises doubts about whether the commission will be guided by science or political and economic considerations. Furthermore, while the order criticizes the increased use of prescription medications, it does not address the root causes of rising diagnoses for conditions like ADHD or depression. Simply questioning the growing reliance on medication without proposing viable alternatives risks stigmatizing necessary medical treatments.
The Make America Healthy Again Commission appears more symbolic than substantive. Its ideological focus is reducing medication use, scrutinizing scientific institutions, and blaming external influences rather than advancing well-supported public health solutions.
President Trump issued a Memorandum on Reciprocal Trade and Tariffs, which presents an aggressive approach to addressing perceived trade imbalances but suffers from economic oversimplifications and strategic risks. While the memorandum rightly emphasizes fairness and reciprocity in trade, it operates under the flawed assumption that the U.S. trade deficit is inherently harmful primarily due to unfair trade practices. In reality, trade deficits are influenced by complex macroeconomic factors such as investment flows, consumer preferences, and currency values. The administration’s singular focus on eliminating trade deficits overlooks these broader economic realities and risks implementing policies that could have unintended consequences.
Additionally, the memorandum fails to address the risk of retaliatory measures by trading partners adequately. If the U.S. imposes reciprocal tariffs, other countries will likely respond in kind, potentially harming American exporters—especially in industries like agriculture and manufacturing, which depend on international markets. The broad and vaguely defined criteria for “unfair” trade practices also raise concerns. By granting extensive discretionary power to U.S. trade officials to label various trade policies as unfair, the plan risks creating arbitrary and politically driven trade measures that could violate World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and strain diplomatic relations.
While the memorandum outlines an investigative process to assess trade barriers, it lacks clear guidelines for determining and enforcing reciprocal tariffs. The absence of a well-defined implementation strategy raises concerns about economic disruptions, as increased tariffs could lead to higher costs for American businesses and consumers. Many industries rely on global supply chains, and reciprocal tariffs could inflate costs, reducing the competitiveness of U.S. firms and potentially fueling inflation.
Ultimately, while the memorandum reflects a strong protectionist stance aimed at defending American economic interests, it is economically simplistic and strategically risky. Instead of relying on broad, retaliatory tariffs, a more practical approach would involve multilateral negotiations, targeted enforcement of trade violations, and domestic investments to enhance U.S. competitiveness. By failing to consider the complexities of global trade and the potential for economic retaliation, the memorandum risks doing more harm than good to the American economy.
The White House’s announcement that President Trump secured the release of three individuals jailed in Belarus raises significant questions about the administration’s broader diplomatic strategy and motivations. While the release of an unnamed American, journalist Andrey Kuznechyk, and activist Alena Maushuk is undoubtedly a positive development, the lack of transparency surrounding the negotiation process and the potential implications of these efforts warrant scrutiny.
White House Special Envoy for Hostage Affairs Adam Boehler emphasized that these releases were not part of an exchange, distancing the development from Russia’s influence. However, given Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko’s close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, it is difficult to separate this move from the broader geopolitical dynamics at play. Lukashenko has repeatedly acted as a strategic ally to Moscow, allowing Russian forces to use Belarusian territory for military operations in Ukraine and even hosting Russian nuclear weapons. If this release was meant to signal Lukashenko’s autonomy, it remains unclear what concessions the U.S. made behind closed doors.
Moreover, the timing of this announcement—following Trump’s exchange of an American teacher for a Russian cyber-criminal—suggests a pattern of engagement that raises ethical concerns. Trump’s National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz, framed these efforts as “confidence-building measures” in negotiations to end the war in Ukraine. However, little evidence suggests that prisoner swaps or individual hostage negotiations will meaningfully influence Putin’s calculus regarding the war. If anything, such moves risk emboldening authoritarian regimes by reinforcing that detaining foreign nationals can serve as leverage in future diplomatic dealings.
Additionally, the effusive praise from exiled Belarusian opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya and statements from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty highlight a selective focus on individual cases rather than a broader human rights agenda. Belarus still holds 1,229 political prisoners, many of whom were arrested in the wake of the country’s fraudulent 2020 presidential election. While these individual releases are important, they do little to address Lukashenko’s systemic repression or the broader crisis of political imprisonment in Belarus.
In light of these factors, Trump’s handling of the situation appears more symbolic than strategic. While his supporters may tout these efforts as diplomatic victories, the administration’s lack of a coherent approach to dealing with Belarus and Russia leaves questions about long-term U.S. interests. Suppose Trump’s moves aim to gain leverage over Putin or influence the war in Ukraine. In that case, they appear more like short-term political maneuvers than meaningful steps toward a resolution.
Editor’s note: The following is an update to the release of Marc Fogel on Tuesday, February 11. As of publishing time on that date, the exchange details were not made public.
The United States has released accused Russian money launderer Alexander Vinnik in exchange for American teacher Marc Fogel, according to a Trump administration source. Vinnik, who allegedly ran a massive cryptocurrency exchange linked to cyber criminals, had been extradited to the U.S. in 2022 after serving time in France for money laundering. As part of the deal, he was required to forfeit seized funds to the U.S. government. The exchange aligns with former President Trump’s efforts to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine, with Trump suggesting the swap was a goodwill gesture by Russia. The exchange of Vinnik has sparked debate within the U.S. government, with critics warning that releasing cybercriminals could encourage further transnational crime. The Kremlin acknowledged the exchange but withheld details on the Russian citizen involved. The deal marks a rare high-level U.S.-Russia engagement since the Ukraine invasion, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio calling it a “positive sign” for potential future negotiations.
The Trump administration initiated a mass firing of federal workers, focusing on probationary employees who have been in government service for only one to two years and have not yet gained full civil service protections. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) instructed agency leaders to dismiss these employees, potentially affecting hundreds of thousands of workers. An OPM spokesperson stated that the probationary period is part of the job application process rather than a guarantee of permanent employment. The move aligns with the administration’s efforts to streamline the federal workforce following a hiring freeze.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced plans to rescind $20 billion in grants awarded under the Biden administration for climate and clean energy projects, specifically targeting the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, also known as the "green bank." The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, created under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, was approved by Congress and directed toward nonprofits and community organizations to fund clean energy projects, particularly in disadvantaged communities. Zeldin is relying on partisan rhetoric rather than substantive policy evaluation by labeling the initiative as a wasteful “slush fund” and citing a heavily edited video from the controversial right-wing group Project Veritas. His claim of restoring fiscal responsibility ignores that these grants had already been awarded through a competitive process. Additionally, his unilateral action raises serious legal and constitutional questions, as the executive branch does not have the power to revoke Congressionally approved funds arbitrarily. This move appears less about governance and more about dismantling climate initiatives supported by the Biden administration, potentially setting a precedent for politicizing essential environmental funding.
A federal judge temporarily blocked a U.S. order from former President Donald Trump that sought to end all federal funding or support for gender-affirming healthcare for minors. U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson issued the restraining order in response to a lawsuit filed by families of transgender teens and advocacy groups, who argued the order unlawfully restricted access to necessary medical care. Trump's directive, issued on January 28, instructed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to end funding for gender-transition treatments, calling them "destructive and life-altering procedures." Following the order, several hospitals canceled appointments for gender-affirming care, leaving patients without access to treatments such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy. The lawsuit, backed by Lambda Legal and the ACLU, contends the order is discriminatory and exceeds presidential authority. Meanwhile, Republican-led states have passed laws restricting such care, some of which have faced legal challenges. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on Tennessee’s ban, a case that could set a national precedent. The Biden administration had previously supported gender-affirming care and attempted to ban healthcare discrimination against transgender individuals, though that rule was blocked by a judge last year.
The White House abruptly terminated at least a dozen U.S. attorneys, marking an unprecedented move by the Trump administration amid ongoing turmoil at the Justice Department. A review of federal attorney appointments revealed that 12 names had been removed from the official list, though the White House and Justice Department did not confirm an exact number. Typically, politically appointed U.S. attorneys are asked to resign rather than being directly fired, making this action a significant departure from past precedent. Among those dismissed were court-appointed prosecutors, including one involved in Jan. 6 cases. Several Biden-appointed U.S. attorneys, such as those in California, Maryland, and North Carolina, also received termination notices, though some did not provide reasons for their departures. The involvement of the White House in these firings, rather than the Justice Department, is highly unusual. Additionally, Trump’s administration has made sweeping changes within the Justice Department since his inauguration, including mass pardons for Jan. 6 rioters, appointing a pro-Capitol rioter advocate as the interim U.S. attorney for D.C., and taking actions that raised concerns about mass firings at the FBI. The Justice Department remains in a state of upheaval as these unprecedented personnel decisions continue.