What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
June 19, 2025 Recap
The Trump administration’s handling of potential U.S. involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict reflects a troubling mix of strategic ambiguity, performative brinkmanship, and diplomatic inconsistency. Donald Trump’s self-imposed two-week deadline to decide on military action—couched in vague references to “possible negotiations”—amounts to little more than a public ultimatum with no clear criteria, leaving both allies and adversaries uncertain about American intentions. While the administration claims this ambiguity is deliberate, it appears more like indecision masked as strategy.
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s insistence that Americans “trust in President Trump” offers little reassurance, especially given the administration’s open defiance of intelligence assessments regarding Iran’s nuclear intentions. Trump’s dismissal of reports from his own Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, suggests a politicized approach to intelligence that undermines informed policymaking. Instead of pursuing a coherent diplomatic path, the White House seems to be toying with war as leverage, using inflammatory language and leak-driven media speculation to signal potential escalation.
The administration’s refusal to clarify whether Congress would be consulted further erodes democratic accountability, particularly given the gravity of initiating a new military conflict. Meanwhile, Iran’s stark warning that U.S. involvement would unleash “hell” in the region is met not with careful diplomacy but with bluster and deflection. Trump’s Truth Social denial of leaked strike plans—without addressing the substance—only reinforces the perception of a reactive, media-obsessed presidency rather than a steady hand in crisis.
Even as diplomatic backchannels reportedly remain active, the continued Israeli bombardment and the targeting of Iranian nuclear infrastructure—including Fordo and Natanz—diminish the likelihood of a peaceful resolution. The administration’s passive endorsement of these strikes, coupled with its own veiled threats, pushes the region closer to a quagmire. Trump’s approach risks turning a volatile regional conflict into a broader war—one that the United States may not be able to control and should not enter without clear objectives, legal authorization, or public consensus.
Donald Trump issued an executive order titled “Further Extending the TikTok Enforcement Delay”, which represents a conspicuous retreat from the administration’s own earlier posture of urgency regarding the national security risks of foreign adversary-controlled applications. Originally framed as a matter of protecting Americans from data exploitation by foreign entities—particularly China—this third enforcement delay raises serious questions about the consistency, credibility, and underlying motivations of the administration’s technology policy.
The order essentially freezes all enforcement of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (Public Law 118-50) until September 17, 2025, and grants sweeping retroactive immunity to companies that have failed to comply with the law since its enactment. While the administration cites "national security interests" to justify the order, the text itself paradoxically undermines that rationale by directing the Department of Justice not only to refrain from enforcement but to actively issue letters absolving companies of liability, even for past conduct. This creates a striking legal shield for entities that, by the administration’s own prior claims, may be enabling data access by adversarial governments.
Additionally, the order takes a confrontational tone toward state-level enforcement or private lawsuits, suggesting that such efforts would constitute an “encroachment on the powers of the Executive.” This language appears less concerned with national security than with centralizing political control over the narrative and legal authority surrounding the Act. The preemptive warning to states and private parties further erodes the federalism principles typically championed by this administration, casting doubt on the legitimacy of its commitment to the separation of powers when executive dominance is challenged.
In effect, this executive order communicates regulatory indecision and gives the appearance of capitulating to industry pressure or foreign influence, rather than acting with clarity on national security threats. While the White House may argue that it is providing time for implementation or legal clarity, the cumulative effect of three enforcement delays—coupled with explicit non-liability guarantees—signals a retreat masked in bureaucratic legalese. The result is a policy that punishes neither bad actors nor negligence, but instead dilutes the force of a law passed to confront an urgent geopolitical concern.
Source: White House Briefing Room
Karoline Leavitt’s briefing was a hyperbolic display of combative rhetoric, partisan triumphalism, and dubious data claims that prioritized propaganda over meaningful public communication. Her opening assertion that President Trump’s immigration enforcement has resulted in “zero illegal aliens” being released into the U.S. in May was not only presented without corroborating context or independent verification, but it relied on a misleading comparison to a single month of the Biden administration—May 2024—without accounting for broader trends, policy shifts, or seasonal migration patterns. Her characterization of ICE as engaged in the “single largest mass deportation operation in history” invokes fear-driven language rather than sober policy analysis, and her repeated use of dehumanizing terms like “illegal criminals” conflates unauthorized presence with violent criminality in a way that undermines factual precision and reduces trust in the administration’s messaging.
Throughout the briefing, Leavitt leaned heavily on grandiose, unquantified claims of “unprecedented success,” referring to Trump’s immigration and economic policies as “one of the greatest achievements by a presidential administration in the history of our great country.” This superlative-laden style lacked substantive detail, relied on cherry-picked data—such as a vague 2% wage increase for blue-collar workers—and offered no information about the sectors or inflation-adjusted figures involved. Her sales pitch for the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” was riddled with suspect math (e.g., simultaneous claims of $14,000 in additional take-home pay per family and $11,000 per worker, with no source explanation), and relied on vague appeals to middle-class beneficence without reconciling how permanent tax cuts and simultaneous entitlement restrictions would affect long-term fiscal health.
On foreign policy, Leavitt’s defense of Trump’s ambiguous Iran strategy exposed the administration’s reactive posture cloaked in bombast. She repeatedly deferred to the president’s instincts, insisting that his decision on military action would come “within two weeks” but provided no substantive explanation for that timeline beyond rhetorical repetition. Her unwillingness to define what constitutes progress in diplomacy with Iran, or to clarify the nature of back-channel negotiations, underscored how much of the administration’s foreign posture is driven by opaque decision-making rather than strategic clarity. The invocation of Trump’s past statements dating back to 2011 to justify current policy only highlighted the administration’s nostalgia-driven worldview and its unwillingness to adapt to the evolving complexities of international diplomacy.
When challenged on the constitutional rationale for extending the TikTok ban, Leavitt offered platitudes about the president’s popularity and “deal-making instincts,” citing support from White House Counsel without meaningfully addressing the Supreme Court’s prior ruling on executive authority. She described the extension as a good-faith gesture for negotiation, but failed to explain how this iteration would succeed where previous delays had not.
Furthermore, her responses to economic concerns—such as labor shortages in agriculture and hospitality—downplayed the real-world consequences of mass deportations. Her claim that the administration is focused only on removing “rapists and murderers” did not square with the stated goal of targeting millions of undocumented immigrants. This discrepancy reveals a rhetorical sleight of hand: suggesting a narrow focus to soften public resistance, while pursuing much broader enforcement in practice.
On social issues, Leavitt lauded the Supreme Court decision upholding Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, calling it a “huge victory for America’s children” and falsely equating trans healthcare with “chemical castration and mutilation”—language meant to inflame rather than inform. This framing disregarded medical consensus and used stigmatizing language to obscure the real impact of such policies on vulnerable populations.
Finally, her embrace of grievance politics—mocking Representative Jasmine Crockett, labeling Democrats as power-hungry, and using the press briefing to air partisan insults—diminished the office of the Press Secretary. Leavitt’s role, ostensibly to inform the public, was instead weaponized for culture war signaling and ideological entrenchment.
In sum, the briefing operated as a performance rather than a policy update, designed to excite loyalists, obscure ambiguity, and demonize opponents. It lacked the transparency, factual rigor, and communicative integrity expected of a White House press office.
The Trump Administration’s refusal to issue a Juneteenth proclamation this year is a striking abdication of moral and political responsibility. Juneteenth, now a federal holiday since its enactment in June 2021, commemorates the long-overdue realization of emancipation for enslaved African Americans Yet, press secretary Karoline Leavitt admitted the White House “is not tracking the president’s signature on any proclamation” marking the day. This conspicuous silence stands in stark contrast to Trump’s earlier acknowledgment of the holiday—he famously claimed in 2020 that he “made Juneteenth very famous”—and his annual proclamations through 2020. That initial sign of recognition, however superficial, has now given way to deliberate disengagement, consistent with the administration’s sweeping January executive order banning DEI initiatives and discouraging race-conscious cultural observances. The result is a strikingly hollow observance: federal agencies are being urged to take a “passive approach” to Juneteenth, and celebrations nationwide are being scaled back in response. In a nation grappling with historical inequities and the struggle for racial justice, ignoring Juneteenth sends a troubling message—that acknowledging America’s painful past and honoring Black liberation is now optional. By choosing silence over affirmation, the administration undermines the unity and reflection that federal holidays are meant to foster, reinforcing a narrative that racial progress can be, and perhaps should be, sidelined in national life.
Sources: NYMag.com, Washington Examiner, ABC News, Vanity Fair, Yahoo! News
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued new guidelines restricting congressional access to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) field offices. While federal law allows members of Congress to enter detention facilities without prior notice, DHS now claims this does not apply to ICE field offices—despite the fact that immigrants are often detained there before being transferred to ICE jails. Under the new rules, ICE has full discretion to deny, cancel, or alter congressional visits to these offices and asks for at least 72 hours' notice.
These restrictions come amid escalating tensions between the Trump administration and Democratic lawmakers, many of whom have opposed Trump's aggressive immigration policies, including mass deportations and efforts to remove international students with pro-Palestinian views. Several Democratic politicians have recently clashed with ICE agents during attempted oversight visits, and some—such as Rep. LaMonica McIver and city officials in Newark and New York—have even been arrested or prosecuted. Despite the law guaranteeing congressional oversight of detention sites, the administration appears to be limiting access and penalizing dissenting officials.
A federal judge in Rhode Island blocked the Trump administration from conditioning transportation grant funding on state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell ruled in favor of 20 Democratic-led states, issuing an injunction against the Department of Transportation’s policy. The states argued that Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy lacked the legal authority to impose such conditions, which they claimed were an attempt to coerce them into supporting Trump’s immigration agenda, including cooperation with ICE. The judge found the states likely to succeed on their claims. The lawsuit follows Trump's executive orders targeting sanctuary jurisdictions and withholding federal funds from noncompliant states. A separate but related case involving Homeland Security is also underway.
Situation Room is FUBAR