What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
April 3, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump held a press gaggle on board Air Force One, once again offering a stream-of-consciousness performance that blurred the line between governance and personal promotion. He began the event touting a "Trump Card Gold Card" — a symbolic yet telling reminder of how his presidency often functions in tandem with his brand. What followed was a sprawling, disorganized set of remarks that touched on economic policy, foreign affairs, personnel decisions, and even his involvement in professional golf — all without a clear sense of structure or coherence. The event reflected a governing style rooted more in personality and improvisation than policy precision.
On economic matters, Trump repeated familiar talking points about revitalizing American manufacturing, referencing vague figures like “trillions of dollars” in investment and “90,000 plants lost due to NAFTA” — numbers that are either gross exaggerations or outright fabrications. He framed the U.S. economy as a “sick patient” now recovering after “Liberation Day,” a theatrical metaphor that offers no meaningful insight into economic indicators or recovery mechanisms. His economic outlook was marked by unsubstantiated optimism, boasting of construction booms, and job creation without offering details or measurable goals. His approach to tariffs was especially simplistic and self-congratulatory, describing them as the ultimate leverage tool that forces countries to "do anything for us." This framing ignored the economic risks posed by retaliatory tariffs and downplayed the long-term impact on American consumers and businesses.
Foreign policy discussion was equally hollow. Trump claimed that he personally was responsible for the release of hostages in Gaza, that Putin and Xi Jinping were ready to “make deals,” and that American-led negotiations would soon bring an end to the Russia–Ukraine war. These assertions were presented without evidence, driven by Trump’s belief that diplomacy is best conducted through personal rapport rather than institutional strategy. His comments on Iran similarly framed international dialogue as a matter of preference rather than policy, with Trump indicating a vague willingness to engage in direct talks while simultaneously claiming he speaks to foreign leaders like Xi “all the time.” However, he refused to specify when or what was discussed. This style of off-the-cuff international relations reinforces the notion that global diplomacy, in his view, is a matter of transactional deal-making rather than sustained statecraft.
On the domestic front, Trump revealed the continued politicization of personnel decisions. When asked about National Security Council staff changes, he admitted that individuals were being let go due to “loyalties to somebody else,” emphasizing loyalty over qualification. He also confirmed that far-right activist Laura Loomer had been recommending personnel appointments — a disturbing indication of how fringe figures are being given influence in executive staffing. This loyalty-driven approach to governance undermines institutional integrity and prioritizes political obedience over expertise.
Trump also addressed a number of social and cultural issues, including a brief and noncommittal endorsement of proxy voting for new mothers in Congress, stating he supported the idea in principle but preferred to defer to Speaker Mike Johnson. While supportive on the surface, his remarks lacked substance and avoided engagement with the actual implications of such a policy. His comments on Elon Musk further revealed his conflation of business and governance. He praised Musk as a “patriot” and “smart person” leading investigations into fraud and waste while suggesting that he would eventually return to his businesses. Musk's informal, undefined role raises questions about accountability, conflicts of interest, and the degree to which private individuals are wielding federal influence.
Throughout the gaggle, Trump repeatedly inserted references to his own properties and commercial ventures, including the Trump National Doral golf course and his efforts to merge the PGA Tour with the LIV Tour. This self-promotion, even in the context of official presidential remarks, highlights his persistent blending of public office and private enterprise. In sum, the press gaggle was less a policy briefing than a chaotic soliloquy — part campaign rally, part personal ad, and part grievance session. It reinforced Trump’s hallmark traits: improvisation over preparation, loyalty over competence, and branding over governance. The lack of clarity, specificity, or accountability in his responses only underscores the broader instability of his second-term leadership style.
Donald Trump's sweeping new tariffs have ignited a global backlash and raised fears of a deepening trade war, with trading partners threatening retaliation and world markets reacting sharply. The administration announced a 10% baseline tariff on all imports, alongside targeted duties that reach as high as 54% on key trade partners like China and the European Union. These measures represent the most aggressive protectionist policies in over a century, signaling a sharp departure from the post-war era of trade liberalization. The fallout was immediate: global stock markets plunged, U.S. allies expressed outrage, and businesses began scrambling to adjust supply chains and operations. Automaker Stellantis announced temporary U.S. layoffs and the closure of plants in Canada and Mexico, while General Motors shifted production stateside.
The tariffs have also triggered alarm among U.S. allies and rival economies alike. China and the EU vowed retaliation, with French President Emmanuel Macron urging a freeze on European investment in the United States. Other countries, including South Korea, Mexico, and India, signaled they would hold off on retaliation—for now—while seeking diplomatic off-ramps. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney condemned the tariffs as a betrayal of America’s historic role in global economic cooperation, warning that the era of economic predictability had ended. Analysts pointed to the disproportionate impact on developing nations like Madagascar, now facing 47% tariffs on key exports, despite their limited ability to purchase U.S. goods in return.
Domestically, the Trump administration framed the move as a long-overdue correction to years of unfair trade practices. President Trump described the tariffs as “reciprocal,” arguing they would revitalize U.S. manufacturing and open new export markets. Vice President JD Vance acknowledged the hardship the tariffs might initially cause, especially as they risk driving up consumer prices, but urged Americans to be patient. Yet many economists warned the strategy could backfire: tariffs of this scale could reignite inflation, increase the risk of recession, and raise household costs by thousands of dollars—posing serious political risks for a president who campaigned on lowering the cost of living.
Strategically, the tariffs also risk damaging critical alliances. Trump imposed steep new duties on Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan—nations that trade heavily with the U.S. and host major American military bases. This move comes as tensions with China continue to rise, making U.S. relationships in the Indo-Pacific all the more vital. European allies, already rattled by Trump’s pressure on NATO and his wavering stance on Russia’s war in Ukraine, are now exploring closer trade ties among themselves. Canada and Mexico—though spared from targeted tariffs in this announcement—are already under pressure from existing duties and a new set of auto tariffs.
Overall, Trump’s tariff policy appears more ideological than strategic, advancing a protectionist vision that conflates economic policy with geopolitical leverage. While it may score points with voters looking for signs of American assertiveness, economic, diplomatic, and political costs are rapidly stacking up. The administration insists the tariffs will create jobs and restore balance. Still, for now, they have frozen business investment, rattled global markets, and strained America’s role as a stable economic partner. With the tariffs set to take effect on April 9, the world is bracing for a potentially transformative—and volatile—turn in global trade.
Vice President JD Vance appeared on Fox & Friends in a textbook example of style over substance—an aggressively performative interview that substitutes ideological bravado for coherent policy thinking. While he clearly relishes his role as the Trump administration’s attack dog, Vance offers little more than a populist veneer plastered over weak economic logic, inflammatory rhetoric, and legally dubious proposals. The tone of the interview is combative and absolutist, with no room for nuance or honest grappling with the complexities of governance. Every issue is reduced to a binary: Trump’s America versus “radical judges,” “globalist elites,” and “Democrats who weep for criminals but not for victims.” This reductionist messaging may thrill the base, but it reveals a troubling lack of intellectual discipline and a dangerous appetite for authoritarian shortcuts.
Vance’s economic commentary is especially hollow. He claims tariffs will bring manufacturing back and lower prices—two outcomes inherently at odds in the short term. Despite overwhelming evidence that tariffs often raise costs for consumers, Vance insists they are a solution to inflation, citing a bizarre anecdote about egg prices dropping under Trump as if that isolated statistic somehow validates a sweeping trade policy. The absence of empirical data, economic modeling, or sector-specific breakdowns makes it clear this is not a serious economic plan—it’s populist messaging dressed up as policy. Even the proposed tax cuts are framed not as part of a larger fiscal strategy but as a punitive measure against companies that move jobs overseas. This is not industrial policy; it’s economic theater weaponized for campaign soundbites.
On immigration, Vance ventures into outright demagoguery. His invocation of specific crime cases involving undocumented immigrants is clearly meant to inflame, not inform. These emotionally charged anecdotes are used to justify sweeping, draconian policies without any regard for due process, civil liberties, or the structural issues within the immigration system. His casual assertion that “illegal crossings are down 95%” is unsubstantiated and likely false, but he delivers it with the confidence of someone unconcerned with being challenged. Even more disturbing is his proposal to limit judicial review of immigration cases—an authoritarian impulse that betrays a fundamental disregard for the constitutional balance of power. Vance does not offer real solutions for immigration reform—just vengeance politics masquerading as public safety.
The portion of the interview that touches on Elon Musk’s role in government is another example of a hollow spectacle. Vance praises Musk’s involvement in rooting out “fraudulent grants.” He frames the federal bureaucracy as a swamp of inefficiency and corruption yet fails to provide any concrete evidence beyond cartoonish claims about “150-year-olds collecting Social Security.” These exaggerated talking points are meant to delegitimize public institutions, not reform them. The so-called DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) appears to be less a serious policy office and more a PR stunt meant to flatter Musk’s cult of personality and bolster Trumpworld’s anti-government narrative.
Even when addressing complex geopolitical issues like TikTok and Chinese surveillance, Vance reduces the conversation to political calculus. He claims the Trump team wants to ensure TikTok isn’t “spying on people” but also insists the platform is useful because “young people are learning about Trump policies” there. This contradiction exposes the shallow opportunism of the administration’s tech policy: national security concerns are real only insofar as they don’t interfere with political messaging. It’s an unserious, self-serving approach to a very real and sensitive policy area.
Finally, Vance’s repeated insistence that “politics will take care of itself” if he and Trump do a good job is a thinly veiled way of keeping 2028 presidential ambitions in play without appearing disloyal. The truth is that this interview functions more as a soft launch for his own future campaign than as an honest assessment of the administration’s progress. His closing claim—that Trump has done more in 100 days than past presidents have done in eight years—is not just absurdly hyperbolic, it’s offensive to any notion of factual discourse or historical perspective.
Vance’s performance is not the work of a serious policymaker but of a political opportunist playing the role of vice president as a stepping stone to something bigger. His rhetoric is designed to stir emotions and reinforce tribal loyalty, not to lead or legislate. This interview may have succeeded in energizing MAGA die-hards, but it laid bare the intellectual and ethical hollowness at the heart of the administration’s approach to governance.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s appearance on Morning in America was heavy on campaign-style rhetoric and light on economic clarity. Her defense of President Trump’s sweeping reciprocal tariffs leaned on emotional language—calling it “the golden rule for the golden age of America”—without offering a clear or honest assessment of how such a broad-based policy would affect American consumers and businesses. Leavitt insisted that Americans would see “no pain” from the tariffs and promised “price stability,” but these claims run counter to basic economic consensus. A 10% tariff on imports from over 180 countries is effectively a tax on consumers, one that will likely raise costs in the short term before any potential gains in domestic manufacturing can materialize. Her refusal to acknowledge this reality undermines her credibility and presents an overly optimistic view of a policy with serious implications.
Leavitt’s use of historical statistics was also selective and misleading. She cited a $6,500 increase in wages during Trump’s first term without adjusting for inflation or acknowledging the pandemic’s distortion of wage data. Similarly, her reference to a $1.02 trillion trade deficit and the loss of 90,000 factories paints a dire picture, but she omits critical context about how much of the trade deficit is driven by U.S. services exports and how factory closures are often tied to automation, not just offshoring. When asked about Canada and Mexico being excluded from the tariff list, Leavitt pivoted to the fentanyl crisis rather than offering a coherent trade rationale, and her vague threats of tariffs for non-compliance with USMCA appeared contradictory and diplomatically clumsy.
Throughout the segment, Leavitt dismissed any potential economic downsides, claiming instead that jobs would come back home, wages would rise, and Trump’s broader agenda—tax cuts, deregulation, and the so-called “Trump Energy Boom”—would further ease any burden on American families. While effective for rallying supporters, this messaging style lacked the nuance and accountability expected of a senior administration official speaking on economic policy. Rather than treating the tariffs as a complex issue with real trade-offs, Leavitt leaned into bombast and deflection. For an administration making sweeping changes to the global trade landscape, this kind of communications strategy may satisfy the base. Still, it falls short of the transparency and realism needed to earn broader public trust.
Donald Trump’s firing of three National Security Council officials—Brian Walsh, Thomas Boodry, and David Feith—following a meeting with far-right activist Laura Loomer represents a troubling breach in national security governance. That such a significant personnel decision appears to have been influenced, if not directly prompted, by a conspiracy theorist with no formal policy experience undermines the integrity of the decision-making process at the highest levels of government. Loomer, known for promoting baseless claims, including the notion that the 9/11 attacks were an “inside job,” should not have proximity to the Oval Office, let alone the ability to shape national security staffing. Her influence speaks to a broader erosion of professional standards and the increasing substitution of loyalty for expertise in Trump’s second-term administration.
The dismissal of experienced figures—such as Walsh, who served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Feith, a former State Department official—suggests that ideological alignment with Trump’s inner circle now supersedes qualifications or institutional knowledge. This not only disrupts continuity in the NSC but also sends a chilling message to career officials that competence matters less than political loyalty. At a time of mounting international tensions, such instability in the president’s national security team introduces unnecessary risk and strategic vulnerability.
Loomer’s continued access to Trump also highlights a failure of internal control among his advisors. Despite previous efforts by aides to keep her at a distance, she has remained a visible presence in Trump’s orbit, even traveling with him on campaign events. Her appearance at a 9/11 memorial service last year sparked bipartisan outrage, yet her influence has only grown. That this meeting was also attended by Vice President JD Vance and Rep. Michael Waltz—who reportedly defended the staff targeted by Loomer—reveals ongoing friction within the administration between ideological enforcers and remaining institutionalists. It also casts doubt on whether those close to the president are capable of insulating critical functions like national security from the whims of fringe influencers.
Ultimately, this episode reflects the deeper dysfunction of a presidency increasingly shaped by grievance politics and conspiratorial thinking. Allowing someone like Loomer to drive national security decisions is irresponsible and dangerous. It further destabilizes the institutional guardrails meant to protect U.S. foreign policy from political interference. It weakens the credibility of the NSC at a time when global threats demand steady, informed leadership.
The Trump administration is threatening to withhold Title I federal funding—which supports schools with many low-income students—from districts that continue using Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs that the administration deems discriminatory under civil rights law.
In a letter to states, the U.S. Department of Education warned that any DEI-related activity perceived as favoring one race over another could violate federal anti-discrimination rules. Schools must certify compliance within 10 days or risk losing funds. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon has yet to clearly define what constitutes a violation, but the department has previously opposed race-based policies in education.
The move is part of a broader push to reinterpret civil rights laws and limit federal influence in education, alongside other directives on student privacy, COVID funding cuts, and school choice.
Critics, including the American Federation of Teachers, accuse the administration of using federal aid as a political weapon, potentially harming vulnerable students. Some local leaders, like a California superintendent whose district depends heavily on Title I funds, worry about the consequences but express cautious support for reducing federal overreach—provided they can still access needed funding.
Over $18 billion in Title I funds are at stake, affecting nearly 90% of U.S. school districts.
A D.C. Circuit panel ruled to lift a preliminary injunction that had temporarily blocked the Trump administration from dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The court emphasized that its decision was procedural rather than substantive, noting that it would allow oral arguments to proceed while preserving two key agreements between the administration and the National Treasury Employees Union. In the interim, these agreements prevent the mass termination of CFPB employees, contracts, and funding. The panel—composed of Judges Cornelia Pillard, Gregory Katsas, and Neomi Rao—signaled that the stay does not reflect a ruling on the underlying merits of the case.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson had originally issued the injunction following a two-day evidentiary hearing, where she found credible evidence that Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and officials from the White House Office of Management and Budget were aggressively attempting to shutter the CFPB. Employees described abrupt terminations and efforts to dismantle the bureau’s operations, prompting Jackson to characterize the situation as a “hostile takeover.” Her March 28 order barred the administration from further firings, required the reinstatement of dismissed employees, mandated the preservation of CFPB records and systems, and instructed the administration to ensure the agency could continue performing its statutory duties.
The Trump administration appealed the order, arguing that the court had overstepped its authority and effectively placed the agency under unlawful judicial control. The Department of Justice criticized Jackson’s intervention as freezing the CFPB “as it stood before President Trump’s inauguration,” calling the order an improper barrier to executive reforms. Jackson had cited public statements from Trump, Musk, and OMB Director Russell Vought—including Musk’s “CFPB RIP” post—as evidence of the administration’s intent to dismantle the agency altogether.
This case reflects broader tensions as Trump, in his second term, pursues an aggressive agenda to reshape the federal government. He has targeted numerous federal agencies and frozen funding for programs that conflict with his political objectives, leading to a flood of legal challenges. Many of these cases, including controversial deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, have landed in the D.C. Circuit and may soon reach the Supreme Court. While Thursday’s order allows the Trump administration some procedural breathing room, it also sets the stage for a major constitutional battle over executive authority and the preservation of statutory federal agencies.
Source: Courthouse News Service
Dr. Mehmet Oz, a television personality and former surgeon, was confirmed by a 53–45 Senate vote to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Republicans were in favor, and Democrats opposed. During his confirmation, Oz pledged to empower patients, fight fraud and waste, and focus on chronic disease and care for vulnerable populations.
CMS, under the Department of Health and Human Services—currently led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—provides health coverage to over 160 million Americans. Oz gained national fame through his TV career, particularly "The Dr. Oz Show," and served as an informal adviser to Donald Trump during the COVID-19 pandemic, promoting debunked treatments like hydroxychloroquine.
Critics have long challenged Oz’s promotion of unproven medical remedies. He previously ran unsuccessfully for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania in 2022.
The Pentagon’s acting inspector general has launched a review into Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s use of the encrypted messaging app Signal to coordinate military action against Houthi militants in Yemen. Signal, which is not approved for classified communications or federal record-keeping, was used by Hegseth and other top officials—including VP JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, DNI Tulsi Gabbard, and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz—to plan the March 15 strike.
The review, prompted by bipartisan concern in the Senate, will assess whether Defense Department protocols were violated, especially regarding classification and records retention laws. The Signal thread came to public attention after journalist Jeffrey Goldberg was mistakenly added to the chat by Waltz.
Hegseth reportedly shared detailed timing of the airstrike, potentially disclosing classified information before U.S. forces were airborne. Though the Trump administration denies any classified info was shared, military officials say the nature of the details likely met that threshold.
Trump has continued to back Waltz, though he fired several of Waltz’s staffers amid pressure from far-right allies. Meanwhile, during his confirmation hearing, Lt. Gen. Dan Caine avoided directly criticizing the use of unsecured messaging but emphasized the importance of operational surprise.
A United Kingdom court has ordered Donald Trump to pay over $820,000 in legal fees to Orbis Business Intelligence, founded by Christopher Steele, a former MI6 agent and author of the controversial 2016 Steele dossier. The order comes after Trump’s unsuccessful lawsuit against the company, which he claimed had violated British data protection laws and damaged his reputation.
In 2022, Trump sued Orbis in London over the now-infamous 35-page dossier that alleged, among other things, that Trump was “compromised” by Russian intelligence and had participated in sex parties in St. Petersburg. The dossier was originally commissioned as opposition research during the 2016 U.S. presidential election and became a focal point of political and legal controversy, though much of it was unverified.
Trump argued the information was false, damaging, and improperly handled, constituting a breach of UK data laws. However, in 2024, Judge Karen Steyn dismissed the case, ruling that Trump had no compelling reason to proceed to trial. She also noted the delay in bringing the claim and the lack of evidence that the dossier had directly harmed Trump under the legal standard required in the UK.
After losing the case, Trump was ordered to pay Orbis’s legal costs. Trump objected to the amount, calling it “outrageously high,” and failed to pay the first installment. As a result, a hearing was held to enforce payment.
Judge Jason Rowley has now ruled that Trump must pay the full amount of £630,000 (approximately $823,000) in legal fees, with interest accruing daily at a 12% rate, per the Associated Press. The judgment underscores the financial consequences of Trump’s repeated legal actions abroad and the increasing difficulty he faces in mounting and sustaining lawsuits related to the 2016 election and the Russia investigation.