What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
March 5, 2025 Recap
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt held a press briefing that was more of a campaign-style speech than a standard White House press conference. Rather than offering a balanced discussion of policy and administration priorities, Leavitt used the platform to deliver a highly partisan and combative message. Her remarks were filled with unqualified praise for President Trump while simultaneously attacking Democrats and the media in inflammatory terms. Instead of fostering dialogue, she repeatedly framed the opposition as “completely disgraceful” and “severely out of touch,” reducing complex political disagreements to simple accusations of unpatriotic behavior. This approach may energize Trump’s base, but it does little to promote constructive discourse or address the concerns of all Americans.
Leavitt heavily relied on selective polling data to bolster the administration’s claims. She cited a CBS YouGov poll showing 76% approval of Trump’s speech without providing context on the survey’s methodology or sample representation. Additionally, she referenced the Daily Mail, a conservative-leaning outlet, to claim Trump’s approval ratings were at record highs while dismissing mainstream media polling as biased. By cherry-picking data and disregarding counter-evidence, the briefing raised concerns about transparency and the administration’s commitment to honest communication.
When questioned about the economic impact of Trump’s tariffs, Leavitt failed to provide substantive answers. She acknowledged there would be a “little disturbance” but did not quantify how long Americans should expect rising prices on everyday goods like groceries and cars. Instead, she deflected blame onto the Biden administration, repeatedly citing past inflation levels while offering vague assurances that Trump’s policies would ultimately benefit the economy. Her reluctance to engage with the immediate consequences of tariffs suggests a preference for political spin over economic clarity.
The briefing also focused heavily on cultural issues, particularly transgender athletes in women’s sports. Rather than discussing policy initiatives in depth, Leavitt used the issue to portray Democrats as out of step with mainstream America, criticizing them for refusing to stand during Trump’s State of the Union speech. She reinforced the administration’s tendency to prioritize media narratives over substantive governance by emphasizing symbolic moments over tangible policy proposals.
Leavitt’s discussion of foreign policy was similarly lacking in clarity. She accused Canada of allowing the U.S. to become a "dumping ground" for fentanyl despite the fact that most fentanyl enters the country through Mexico. Her explanation of Trump’s tariffs on China conflated them with the administration’s efforts to combat fentanyl trafficking, ignoring the broader economic consequences of a trade war. On Ukraine, she was evasive about the status of intelligence-sharing and military aid, offering no concrete answers on whether support for Ukraine would be reinstated or permanently cut off.
Perhaps the most bizarre moment of the briefing came when Leavitt stated that Trump "strongly believes" Canada would benefit from becoming the 51st state. Whether this was intended as a rhetorical jab at Canadian leadership or an actual policy stance remains unclear, but it reflects the administration’s penchant for provocative and, at times, unserious statements. Such remarks may generate headlines but do little to reassure allies or clarify policy.
Leavitt’s briefing was a hyper-partisan performance filled with exaggerations, deflections, and unsubstantiated claims. While effective in reinforcing the Trump administration’s narrative, the briefing failed to provide the American public with the substantive information necessary to understand the actual impacts of its policies.
The United States has been directly negotiating with Hamas regarding hostages and a ceasefire in Gaza, a significant departure from its long-standing policy of avoiding direct engagement with groups it designates as terrorist organizations. This was confirmed by both an Israeli official and the White House.
An Israeli official informed CNN that Israel is aware of these direct contacts between the U.S. and Hamas. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt also confirmed that the negotiations were taking place. Axios first reported the discussions, which have been taking place in Doha, Qatar, over the past few weeks.
When asked about the unprecedented nature of these negotiations, Leavitt explained that the U.S. special envoy for hostage affairs, Adam Boehler, has the authority to discuss them with any relevant party. However, she refused to elaborate on the specifics, stating that the talks were ongoing and details would not be disclosed publicly.
In response to the situation, President Trump issued a forceful warning to Hamas via a post on Truth Social, demanding the immediate release of all hostages and the return of the bodies of those killed. His message, written in a confrontational tone, stated:
“‘Shalom Hamas’ means Hello and Goodbye — You can choose. Release all of the Hostages now, not later, and immediately return all of the dead bodies of the people you murdered, or it is OVER for you.”
Hamas reacted strongly to Trump’s comments. Spokesperson Hazem Qassem told CNN that Trump’s statement would “complicate matters regarding the ceasefire agreement” and might embolden the Israeli government to delay or resist implementing a negotiated deal.
The ongoing direct U.S.-Hamas negotiations mark a major shift in diplomatic strategy, reflecting the urgency of the hostage crisis and ceasefire discussions and introducing new political dynamics that could impact the outcome.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to freeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid and instructed U.S. District Judge Amir Ali to clarify his previous order requiring the release of funds. This is the second time the conservative-led court has denied an administration request to limit a federal judge’s authority. The aid in question was designated for work already completed, and many nonprofit organizations and businesses affected by the freeze cut services and laid off workers.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, dissented, arguing that Ali had overstepped his authority. Alito criticized the ruling as an instance of “judicial hubris” that unjustly imposed a $2 billion burden on taxpayers. However, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, two conservative justices, sided with the court’s three liberal justices to form the majority, leaving Ali’s restraining order in place while requesting further clarification on the government’s obligations and compliance timeline.
The Trump administration defended its decision to freeze aid, claiming it had moved away from a blanket halt and instead implemented a case-by-case cancellation process. This resulted in the termination of 5,800 USAID contracts and 4,100 State Department grants, amounting to nearly $60 billion in aid cuts. The administration also argued that Ali’s order was “incredibly intrusive and profoundly erroneous.” The lawsuit that challenged the freeze claimed the administration had violated federal law and cut funding for urgent, life-saving international programs.
Despite the Supreme Court’s decision, uncertainty remains regarding the speed of aid distribution, as Ali is set to hold a hearing to assess the next steps. Meanwhile, during a closed-door House Foreign Affairs Committee briefing, Trump administration official Pete Marocco faced questions from lawmakers about whether the administration would comply with the ruling. He reportedly avoided directly answering whether the funds would be released, leaving doubts about how the administration would respond to the court’s directive.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is set to eliminate over 80,000 jobs as part of a major restructuring effort mandated by President Donald Trump’s executive order to downsize the federal government. An internal memo from VA Chief of Staff Christopher Syrek instructed agency leaders to collaborate with the Department of Government Efficiency to implement these reductions, aiming to return staffing levels to those of 2019. The agency, which currently has approximately 482,000 employees, significantly increased its workforce following the passage of the PACT Act, which expanded benefits for veterans exposed to hazardous materials.
The justification for this mass downsizing, which aims to return staffing to 2019 levels, ignores the reality that demand for VA services has surged since then, particularly following the passage of the PACT Act. This legislation, a bipartisan effort to expand benefits for veterans exposed to hazardous materials, necessitated a significant increase in VA personnel to process claims and provide care. Slashing 80,000 jobs—including 20,000 held by veterans—contradicts this legislative progress and risks creating bottlenecks in claims processing, delaying critical services, and exacerbating an already burdened system.
Moreover, the administration’s move raises legitimate concerns about privatizing veteran health care. By crippling the VA’s capacity to meet demand, the government could justify shifting services to the private sector, a move that could lead to inconsistent quality of care and reduced oversight. Lawmakers such as Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Rep. Mark Takano have rightfully warned that these cuts are not merely about efficiency but rather a broader ideological effort to erode the VA’s role in providing direct care.
The lack of transparency surrounding this decision—the memo only surfaced due to leaks—further undermines public trust. Given the high stakes, such a significant policy shift should have been subject to robust public debate rather than executed behind closed doors. Instead of gutting the VA’s workforce, the administration should focus on modernizing and improving internal efficiencies without jeopardizing the well-being of veterans who rely on these services.
The Trump administration’s plan to detain 30,000 immigrants at Guantánamo Bay has faced significant legal, logistical, and financial challenges since its surprise announcement. The initiative has struggled with high costs, operational confusion, and inter-agency disputes, leading to doubts about its feasibility.
Key issues include the expense of transporting detainees, particularly when using costly military flights instead of charter planes. The Guantánamo facility also lacks proper infrastructure, with tents that do not meet ICE detention standards. As costs mount and the administration faces budget constraints, officials acknowledge that detaining migrants at U.S. military bases like Fort Bliss may be a more viable alternative.
The effort has been plagued by a lack of coordination between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Pentagon. Military personnel were initially responsible for setting up detention spaces without clear guidance, while ICE, facing staff shortages, struggled to manage detainee oversight. Legal concerns over the use of military flights for transporting immigrants have also been raised in Congress.
Due to these obstacles, military flights to Guantánamo have slowed, and the number of detainees there has dropped from 178 to 20. A scaled-down version of the plan now appears likely. The administration continues to emphasize its commitment to aggressive immigration enforcement, but internal disputes and logistical failures have stalled progress.
A federal appeals court has temporarily allowed the Trump administration to proceed with its firing of U.S. Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger while a legal challenge is ongoing. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a lower court ruling that had reinstated Dellinger, who leads an office protecting government whistleblowers. The court also expedited the administration’s appeal, with a briefing set to conclude by April 11.
The three-judge panel—appointed by Presidents George H.W. Bush, Obama, and Trump—found that the administration met the legal standard for a stay, indicating a likelihood of success on appeal. Dellinger may now seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court.
The dispute began when Trump fired Dellinger via a brief email, prompting Dellinger to sue. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson reinstated him, ruling his firing unlawful. The case is part of a broader legal battle over Trump’s dismissals of independent agency leaders who have statutory protections against removal without cause. The administration argues these protections infringe on presidential authority, potentially setting the stage for the Supreme Court to reconsider longstanding precedent on executive power over independent agencies.
That Trump closed down the cybersecurity investigations and communications about Russian cyberattacks is not being discussed. It was reported in the Guardian a few days ago. My congressman’s staffer had not heard about it. (D CA16th district Sam Liccardo)