What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
February 28, 2025 Recap
President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy met in the Oval Office at the White House, presumably to secure a rare earth minerals deal between the two nations. The meeting revealed a deep divide in their priorities, exposing the limitations of Trump’s transactional approach to diplomacy in the face of war. From the outset, Trump focused on the economic benefits of U.S. involvement in Ukraine, emphasizing access to rare earth minerals as a key component of the agreement. His rhetoric suggested that American support was not driven by strategic alliance or moral commitment but rather by financial gain. By repeatedly framing aid as an investment in U.S. interests rather than a defense of Ukraine’s sovereignty, Trump treated the conflict as a business opportunity rather than an existential battle for democracy and security. While pragmatic from a resource acquisition standpoint, this approach failed to acknowledge the full scope of the geopolitical crisis and reduced Ukraine’s fight for survival to a mere transaction.
Zelenskyy, in contrast, made an urgent appeal for sustained military aid and security guarantees, underscoring the brutal reality of Russia’s invasion. He provided harrowing details of Russian war crimes, including the abduction of Ukrainian children, the torture of prisoners of war, and missile strikes on civilian infrastructure. His insistence on robust security commitments reflected an immediate need for defense and a historical understanding of Russian aggression. He highlighted how Putin had repeatedly violated past ceasefires, citing at least 25 breaches of agreements before the full-scale invasion. However, Trump appeared dismissive of these concerns, asserting that negotiating a deal should take precedence over security considerations. He went so far as to claim that security was “only 2% of the problem,” a statement that fundamentally misunderstood Ukraine’s position. To Trump, the primary goal was securing an agreement—regardless of its durability or enforceability—while for Zelenskyy, any agreement without ironclad security measures was meaningless.
A recurring theme in Trump’s remarks was his assertion that Ukraine lacked leverage without U.S. support. He repeatedly told Zelenskyy that Ukraine was “not in a good position” and that “without us, you don’t have any cards.” While there was some truth in acknowledging Ukraine’s dependence on Western military aid, Trump’s framing suggested a condescending and dismissive attitude rather than reaffirming the alliance. Instead of portraying Ukraine as a strong partner resisting aggression, he positioned it as a subordinate state that should be grateful for whatever assistance it received. His insistence that U.S. aid had “empowered [Zelenskyy] to be a tough guy” implied that Ukraine’s resistance to compromise was only possible because of American support, reinforcing an imbalance in the relationship rather than strengthening Ukraine’s hand in negotiations. This rhetoric weakened Zelenskyy’s position and risked emboldening Russia by signaling that U.S. support was conditional and transactional rather than principled and unwavering.
One of the most jarring moments in the conversation was when Trump and his Vice President openly demanded that Zelenskyy express more gratitude. This awkward exchange transformed what should have been a high-stakes diplomatic discussion into a display of ego and power dynamics. At one point, Trump explicitly asked if Zelenskyy had “said thank you” during the meeting, prompting Vice President Vance to scold the Ukrainian president for not showing enough appreciation. The implication was clear: U.S. support was not given freely or based on shared democratic values but rather as a favor for which Ukraine had to constantly express deference. This moment not only demeaned Ukraine’s sacrifices but also cheapened the nature of U.S. foreign policy, suggesting that assistance was contingent on personal validation rather than strategic necessity. Publicly pressuring a wartime leader to perform gratitude risked damaging trust and undermining the alliance, particularly when unity was crucial.
Trump’s overall handling of the conversation raised serious concerns about the future of U.S. leadership in global security. Throughout the discussion, he repeatedly framed the war as a policy failure of the Biden administration rather than a major global crisis requiring steadfast commitment. His skepticism toward continued military aid and his emphasis on economic extraction over strategic stability risked alienating European allies and emboldening adversaries. He insisted that European nations contribute more to the conflict yet simultaneously downplayed the necessity of long-term security commitments. His approach suggested a fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy—one that prioritized short-term gains and financial deals over maintaining international stability and countering authoritarian aggression.
Perhaps most troubling was Trump’s belief that he could personally negotiate peace based on his relationship with Putin. He asserted that he had “known [Putin] for a long time” and claimed he could secure a deal because of this familiarity. This confidence appeared misplaced, given Putin’s track record of violating agreements and expanding Russia’s influence through force. Trump’s assertion that the war “never would have happened” under his presidency oversimplified the geopolitical realities that led to the invasion and ignored the long-standing tensions between Ukraine and Russia. His insistence that he alone could broker a deal overlooked the complexities of the conflict, dismissed Ukraine’s agency, and raised concerns about whether he would pressure Zelenskyy into making dangerous concessions.
This conversation reflected a fundamental misalignment between Trump’s transactional, business-like approach to diplomacy and Zelenskyy’s urgent need for security and survival. Trump’s prioritization of economic deals over military commitments risked sending the message that U.S. support was conditional, undermining Ukraine’s position and potentially emboldening Russia. His dismissive attitude toward security guarantees, combined with his belief in personal diplomacy with Putin, suggested a lack of appreciation for the realities of war. While Trump’s focus on reducing U.S. financial burdens may have appealed to his political base, applying such a framework to a war of national survival appeared tone-deaf and short-sighted. By treating the Ukraine war as a business negotiation rather than a defining moment for global stability, Trump risked weakening U.S. credibility, straining alliances, and setting a dangerous precedent for authoritarian aggression.
A transcript of an interview between President Trump and Ben Domenech for The Spectator World Magazine was published, revealing his political mindset, policy stances, and strategic messaging as he positions himself for another term in office. The interview is touted as “the president’s first magazine interview since his return to the Oval Office.” While Trump projects confidence and decisiveness, the discussion also exposes inconsistencies, exaggerated claims, and a tendency to frame events through a self-serving lens. His reflections on governance highlight his belief that his initial lack of experience in Washington led to poor personnel choices. However, rather than taking responsibility, he shifts the blame to others, portraying himself as a victim of bad recommendations. His insistence that he now moves with greater speed and instills fear in bureaucrats may appeal to supporters who favor strong leadership, but it also raises concerns about governing through intimidation rather than collaboration and expertise.
In discussing foreign policy, Trump’s assertion that the Ukraine war “would have never happened” under his leadership is emblematic of his binary worldview, where his presence alone is framed as a deterrent to global conflicts. While he emphasizes his strong rapport with Putin, he avoids engaging with the deeper geopolitical forces that contributed to Russia’s invasion. His criticism of Biden’s Afghanistan withdrawal similarly reduces a complex situation to a single point of failure, ignoring that the deal to withdraw U.S. troops was negotiated initially under his own administration. Additionally, his stance on military justice, where he condemns the prosecution of soldiers accused of misconduct, suggests a preference for a military unrestrained by accountability—an approach that could foster impunity rather than discipline.
Trump continues to fixate on the 2020 election, insisting it was “rigged” despite a lack of credible evidence. His comparison to Richard Nixon, whom he criticizes for not fighting hard enough, suggests that he sees political survival as more important than institutional stability. Instead of moving forward, he remains anchored to past grievances, which undermines public trust in elections and reinforces a divisive political narrative. His portrayal of his resurgence as “the greatest comeback in political history” is an exaggeration, as political comebacks are not uncommon, and his path back to influence has been aided by Republican consolidation rather than an organic resurgence across the political spectrum.
Trump’s discussion of media and cultural influence reveals a shift from his earlier antagonism toward corporate elites to a more strategic engagement with figures like Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg. While he continues to criticize mainstream media, his embrace of alternative platforms like Joe Rogan’s podcast reflects an understanding of where public attention has shifted. However, his celebration of these platforms ignores the risk of misinformation and the potential consequences of a media environment driven by partisan echo chambers. His broader cultural engagement, including discussions on sports and pop culture, underscores his ability to remain relevant. Still, it highlights how he tailors his messaging to maintain popularity rather than provide substantive policy discussions.
His proposed immigration policy, particularly the “gold card” concept—offering a fast track to citizenship for wealthy individuals willing to pay millions—contradicts his previous hardline stance. This approach effectively places U.S. residency up for sale, favoring the ultra-rich while leaving ordinary immigrants to navigate a bureaucratic maze. Moreover, his claim that he had fully secured the border is misleading, as migration patterns fluctuate based on economic and political factors beyond a single administration’s control. His narrative simplifies a deeply complex issue, reducing it to a matter of willpower rather than acknowledging the logistical and humanitarian challenges at play.
On the issue of crime and urban governance, Trump’s vague suggestion of a federal takeover of Washington, D.C., reveals a lack of concrete policy solutions. While rising crime is a legitimate concern, attributing it solely to Democratic leadership ignores deeper structural factors such as economic inequality, housing instability, and policing challenges. His assertion that the city was thriving under his administration but has since collapsed under Democratic rule is an oversimplification, as urban crime trends are influenced by a variety of forces beyond who occupies the White House.
In discussing bureaucratic corruption, Trump makes sweeping claims about wasteful government spending and inefficiency yet provides few specifics or actionable solutions. His condemnation of a $20 billion Environmental Protection fund as a “scam” lacks evidence, serving more as an attack on government programs than a serious policy critique. His argument that bureaucrats fear him because he exposes corruption is a double-edged sword—while government reform is necessary, his approach risks fostering an environment of retaliation rather than genuine accountability.
Finally, Trump’s engagement with sports and entertainment appears to be a strategic effort to maintain cultural relevance. His discussion of football rule changes, the Philadelphia Eagles visit to the White House, and praise for quarterbacks like Jayden Daniels serve to connect with a broader audience beyond his political base. His framing of sports teams’ shifting attitudes toward him—suggesting that athletes once opposed him but now admire him—fits into his larger pattern of portraying all developments as personal victories. While this tactic may be effective in shaping public perception, it lacks verifiable substance.
Trump’s interview is a mix of strategic messaging, grievance politics, and self-promotion. He effectively presents himself as a fighter who has learned from past mistakes, but his narrative remains highly selective and self-serving. While his confidence and media savvy resonate with his base, his tendency to oversimplify complex issues, frame every event as a personal triumph, and avoid accountability for past missteps remains a critical vulnerability. His ability to shape political discourse is undeniable, but whether his governance approach can evolve beyond personal score-settling and into substantive policymaking remains an open question.
The Trump administration has laid off over 800 employees at NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), which is responsible for U.S. weather forecasting. This has drawn sharp criticism from scientists and researchers, who warn it could endanger American lives and stifle crucial climate research. The layoffs are part of broader government downsizing efforts led by Trump and his aide Elon Musk, who argue they are cutting wasteful spending.
NOAA, which houses key agencies like the National Weather Service and National Hurricane Center, plays a vital role in disaster preparedness. Experts warn that reducing its workforce could lead to less accurate weather forecasts, making it harder to prepare for extreme weather events like hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires—especially as climate change intensifies them.
Critics argue that the cuts could have catastrophic economic and public safety consequences. NOAA data supports American weather forecasting, global research, commercial fisheries, and agriculture. The firings have particularly targeted probationary employees, including scientists working on atmospheric and oceanic models.
Many see this as part of a conservative effort to dismantle NOAA, aligning with Project 2025, a policy blueprint by the Heritage Foundation. Former NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco called the mass firings a “national disaster,” arguing they would not save money but weaken the country's ability to respond to climate-related threats.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) has announced plans to cut 7,000 jobs, reducing its workforce from approximately 57,000 to 50,000 employees in response to an executive order from President Trump aimed at significantly shrinking the federal government. In addition to staff reductions, the SSA will reorganize its regional structure, consolidating 10 regional offices into just four. The agency claims this restructuring will improve efficiency and prioritize customer service, but advocates and employees warn that these cuts will have serious consequences for millions of Americans who rely on Social Security benefits.
Critics argue that the SSA is already struggling with severe understaffing, which has led to long wait times for assistance and delays in disability hearings. Despite serving more beneficiaries than ever, the agency has operated at its lowest staffing levels in 50 years. Union leaders, including representatives from the AFGE SSA General Committee, strongly oppose the job cuts, warning that reducing both front-line and support staff will harm public service and disrupt access to benefits. Employees at the SSA have reported low morale, with some staff members breaking down in meetings over uncertainty about their jobs and the agency’s future.
The leadership shake-up within the SSA has further intensified concerns. Michelle King, the agency’s former acting commissioner, was recently replaced after clashing with officials connected to the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk. Some SSA employees and cybersecurity experts have raised alarms over Musk's involvement and his department’s access to sensitive Social Security data, which includes records for every U.S. citizen. Critics worry that DOGE officials may not have the proper training to handle this vast and complex system, which is already under constant cyber threats. Concerns have also been raised about Musk’s claims of widespread Social Security fraud, though the SSA’s Inspector General has found little evidence to support such claims.
Beyond cybersecurity and leadership concerns, the impact on disability benefits is particularly troubling. Delays in disability claims processing have been an issue for decades, and further staffing reductions are expected to worsen the problem. Reports indicate that thousands of claimants die each year while waiting for their disability appeals to be resolved. Technology improvements have failed to offset the workload, as much of the process remains labor-intensive and requires significant human oversight.
While the Trump administration insists these cuts will make the SSA more efficient, lawmakers and advocates urge Congress to investigate the potential consequences. With Social Security remaining one of the most widely supported government programs, any move affecting benefits access could become a major political issue. As the SSA prepares for these changes, concerns over service delays, office closures, and data security breaches continue to mount, leaving millions of Americans uncertain about the future of their benefits.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a new policy ending public comments during the department’s rulemaking process, reversing a 50-year practice. The justification for this move, framed as a return to the original intent of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), appears more like a convenient legal maneuver to avoid public scrutiny rather than a genuine effort to uphold regulatory integrity. While the APA does exempt certain rulemaking areas from requiring public input, the Richardson waiver was a long-standing safeguard ensuring that health-related policies reflected diverse perspectives rather than being dictated solely by agency officials.
Critics, such as Georgetown law professor Lawrence O. Gostin, rightfully argue that this policy change attempts to insulate the department from accountability. Kennedy’s decision is particularly troubling, given his previous pledges to promote “radical transparency” at HHS. Instead, this abrupt policy shift suggests an intent to push through potentially drastic reforms in health care, public health, and scientific research without meaningful public oversight.
The timing of this decision is also suspect. It comes shortly after HHS postponed a key CDC vaccine committee meeting to allow public comment, raising questions about whether this change is intended to fast-track controversial policy shifts. Historically, courts have upheld the Richardson waiver, meaning legal challenges to Kennedy’s decision are all but certain.
Army Lt. Gen. Telita Crosland retired as director of the Defense Health Agency (DHA) on Friday, according to an announcement from Dr. Stephen Ferrara, acting assistant secretary of defense for health affairs. Crosland, who held the position since January 2023, was the first Black woman to lead the DHA. No additional details regarding her departure were provided.
Her departure comes amid a broader shake-up within the military following the Trump administration’s recent firings of several top military leaders, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Pentagon has not provided reasons for Crosland’s forced retirement and referred inquiries to DHA, which has yet to comment.
Crosland has led DHA since January 2023 and has had a distinguished 32-year military career. She previously served as the Army’s deputy surgeon general, overseeing military healthcare services for over 9 million service members, retirees, and their families. In this role, she also managed challenges with Tricare contract transitions.
Her retirement aligns with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s efforts to dismantle the Pentagon's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Hegseth has been critical of such programs, calling them divisive, and has ended Identity Month celebrations like Black History Month. Civil rights advocates argue that DEI efforts address systemic inequities.
Crosland was scheduled to speak at a major military health conference just days after retirement. In the interim, Dr. David Smith will serve as DHA’s acting director while a replacement is determined.
Sources: Military Times, Reuters