What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
April 15, 2025 Recap
On the heels of their resistance to his threats to revoke federal funding unless it dismantles D E I programs and allows ideological oversight, Donald Trump issued a post on Truth Social targeting Harvard University in an egregious example of authoritarian rhetoric masquerading as policy commentary. His suggestion that Harvard should lose its tax-exempt status because it allegedly promotes “political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness’” is not only legally baseless but also a blatant attempt to intimidate an academic institution for its perceived ideological nonconformity. This is not governance — it is a threat issued by a head of state seeking to punish dissent.
The post deliberately distorts the legal framework of tax exemption. Under U.S. law, universities qualify for tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) if they serve educational purposes and refrain from direct political campaigning. Trump offers no evidence that Harvard has violated this standard. Instead, he implies that disagreement with his administration or tolerance of controversial views is tantamount to terrorism — a slanderous and dangerous conflation that echoes the tactics of authoritarian regimes that label intellectuals and dissenters as enemies of the state.
Worse still is the president’s brazen abuse of the concept of the “public interest.” To Trump, “public interest” appears to mean ideological obedience to his worldview. By suggesting that Harvard’s status should be contingent upon serving his notion of public morality, Trump reveals a fundamental hostility to pluralism, free inquiry, and constitutional protections of speech and association. This post is not just a critique of an institution but a call for political retribution cloaked in the language of governance.
The use of vague, inflammatory accusations — “terrorist inspired/supporting sickness” — is especially egregious. Without context, evidence, or specificity, the accusation functions as a smear designed to provoke fear and justify overreach. It’s a tactic designed to silence rather than persuade, to bully rather than debate.
This post exemplifies the collapse of executive restraint under Trump's second term. It signals a disregard for the rule of law and an increasing willingness to use the levers of government as weapons against ideological opponents. It is demagogic, authoritarian, and beneath the dignity of any president — let alone one sworn to uphold the Constitution.
The Trump administration announced a freeze on $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts to Harvard University after the school rejected federal demands that Harvard’s leadership deemed unconstitutional. The administration’s conditions included audits of academic programs, mandates for governance and hiring changes, and scrutiny of campus viewpoints. Harvard President Alan Garber rebuked the demands, affirming the university’s autonomy and right to determine its own educational and institutional policies.
The funding freeze will severely affect Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, where nearly half the budget depends on federal research funding. Dean Andrea Baccarelli warned that halting government-backed research threatens major public health advances, including ongoing work on diseases such as cancer, HIV, and Alzheimer’s. Notably, the freeze disrupts high-impact research like that of Professor Alberto Ascherio, whose discovery linking the Epstein-Barr virus to multiple sclerosis earned international recognition.
The move is also seen as part of a broader political crackdown. The Trump administration has criticized Harvard’s response to Gaza-related protests and accused it of failing to protect Jewish students, citing Title VI violations. Harvard insists it has taken steps to combat antisemitism and has complied with Supreme Court rulings on race-conscious admissions.
More broadly, the administration is pressuring at least 60 universities, threatening enforcement actions under anti-discrimination laws, and freezing federal funding at multiple institutions. Experts warn that undermining university-government research partnerships—which have historically driven innovation and economic growth—could have long-term consequences. A 2024 report noted that NIH funding alone generated $94.5 billion in economic activity and supported over 400,000 jobs.
Source: Harvard School of Public Health
The suite of executive actions issued by Donald Trump today reflects a broader strategy of technocratic reengineering fused with ideological ambition. Each directive purports to enhance efficiency, restore common sense, or protect national interests, yet taken together, they reveal a governance style centered on deregulation, political targeting, and consolidation of executive power. The memorandum on updating permitting technology calls for digitizing and accelerating environmental reviews under the guise of modernization, but its emphasis on speed and litigation protection over substantive environmental safeguards raises concerns about the integrity of these reviews. It prioritizes efficiency at the potential expense of environmental accountability, suggesting a weakening of procedural rigor masked as innovation.
The memorandum targeting undocumented immigrants’ access to Social Security Act benefits continues Trump’s use of administrative tools for ideological enforcement. While framed as an anti-fraud policy, it amplifies rhetoric around “illegal aliens” and threatens states and localities that don’t adhere to the administration’s verification standards. The expansion of federal prosecutors for fraud enforcement may result in disproportionate targeting of minor violations, particularly given existing data integrity issues within the Social Security Administration. This memorandum blends fiscal justification with a punitive immigration agenda, reflecting a coercive federalism prioritizing political loyalty over administrative cooperation.
The executive order on federal procurement reform presents a deregulatory agenda cloaked in the language of modernization. While the Federal Acquisition Regulation is undoubtedly complex, Trump’s proposed solution—stripping it of all provisions not explicitly required by statute—undermines the very safeguards that ensure competition, fairness, and integrity in federal contracting. By imposing an arbitrary “ten-for-one” rule to eliminate regulations, the order reflects a rigid ideological commitment to deregulation rather than a thoughtful approach to reform. It risks replacing bureaucracy not with efficiency but with cronyism and uneven standards.
Trump’s executive order on drug pricing recycles several policy ideas from his first term while attempting to distinguish his approach from the Biden administration’s Medicare negotiations. This order lacks consistency, simultaneously promoting regulatory interventions such as price transparency and importation while decrying “price controls.” The emphasis on equal treatment for small molecule and biologic drugs may address investment distortions, but the broader policy reads more like a political counteroffensive than a coherent healthcare strategy. Proposals for reforming pharmacy benefit managers, encouraging generic competition, and linking Medicaid drug payments to value are commendable in theory. Yet, their execution is framed within a narrative of grievance rather than innovation.
The national security-focused order on critical minerals exemplifies Trump’s aggressive use of Section 232 trade authorities. It sets the stage for tariffs and import restrictions on processed critical minerals and derivative products, invoking economic nationalism and geopolitical rivalry. While there are legitimate concerns about U.S. dependency on foreign mineral processing, the language of this order is alarmist and speculative. It risks undermining international collaboration and escalating trade tensions, especially with allies that share U.S. supply chain vulnerabilities. Moreover, the order positions domestic protectionism as the sole path to resilience, ignoring the potential of diversified, multilateral solutions.
Finally, the federal office space management order is less about efficiency and more about ideological signaling. By revoking Carter and Clinton-era orders that encouraged federal presence in central business districts and historic properties, the Trump administration severs a longstanding commitment to urban revitalization and community integration. The justification—that these policies obstruct cost-effective siting—disguises a deeper political intent: to diminish federal support for cities, many of which are governed by Democrats. This move aligns with the administration’s broader effort to recenter federal priorities toward suburban and rural locales aligned with its base.
Taken as a whole, these executive actions embody a governance style defined by unilateralism, deregulation, and adversarial politics. While framed as reforms to streamline bureaucracy, protect taxpayers, and promote innovation, they often serve to weaken oversight, entrench executive control, and advance a partisan agenda under the pretense of administrative modernization.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt held a press briefing reflecting the Trump administration’s continued blending of official governance with campaign-style rhetoric, underscoring a partisan and often inflammatory communication strategy. Rather than a neutral update on White House activities, the briefing read more like a political performance, marked by exaggerated claims, ideological framing, and an adversarial tone toward the media, Democratic lawmakers, and elite institutions like Harvard. Leavitt repeatedly emphasized President Trump’s fulfillment of campaign promises, invoking religious and cultural symbolism to appeal to specific voting blocs while vilifying undocumented immigrants and liberal academia. Her celebration of the new White House Faith Office and Holy Week events exemplified this rhetorical shift, casting government initiatives as overt cultural signaling rather than policy.
The economic section of the briefing highlighted massive corporate investments—particularly from Nvidia, Apple, TSMC, and OpenAI—as direct results of what Leavitt calls the “Trump effect.” However, she provided no clear policy explanation for these announcements. This framing reduces complex global economic decisions to political branding and oversimplifies supply chain dynamics and private-sector motivations. Similarly, her discussion of border enforcement took a militaristic tone, touting record-breaking deportations and the creation of a “national defense area” while offering little context about legality or operational oversight. The suggestion that the administration is exploring the possibility of deporting U.S. citizens to Central American prisons—without citing any legal precedent—is deeply troubling. Leavitt’s refusal to clarify the legal basis for such a policy, instead dismissing it as a matter the administration is "looking into," reflects a disregard for constitutional norms and raises serious questions about executive overreach.
Perhaps most alarming is the way Leavitt addressed specific immigration cases. Her inflammatory description of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, labeled repeatedly as an MS-13 “foreign terrorist,” and her attack on Democrats and journalists for allegedly defending him represent a reckless politicization of individual deportation cases. This rhetoric conflates immigration enforcement with criminal justice in a way that circumvents due process and stokes xenophobic sentiment. The same strategy is deployed in her aggressive targeting of Harvard University, where Leavitt announced a freeze on $2 billion in federal funds, invoked threats to revoke tax-exempt status, and accused the institution of violating Title VI without offering detailed legal analysis. These actions appear to be part of a broader culture war campaign against elite academic institutions, framed around anti-Semitism but executed with sweeping generalizations and punitive measures.
On trade and foreign policy, Leavitt offered few substantive updates. Questions about tariffs, Russia negotiations, and China policy were met with vague statements about ongoing talks and generic praise for the president’s personal involvement. Her reference to Trump working at “Trump speed” is emblematic of the administration’s reliance on slogans over specifics. Moreover, Leavitt defended President Trump’s directive to investigate Chris Krebs—an explicitly political act that undermines the norm of Department of Justice independence—by asserting that the president believes it to be within his authority. This normalization of executive power used for political targeting poses a serious threat to democratic accountability.
Leavitt’s posture throughout the briefing reflected an administration that sees the press not as a check on power but as a foil to be chastised and mocked. Her snide remarks about President Biden’s bedtime, as well as her condescending dismissal of legitimate questions about deportation policy and public benefits, exemplify a strategy rooted in combativeness rather than transparency. While she closed with new actions on Social Security fraud—framed again through the lens of immigrant exclusion—the pattern remained consistent: prioritize spectacle, cast dissent as disloyalty, and weaponize federal authority against perceived enemies. This press briefing, like many under this administration, substituted governance with grievance and governance with spectacle, and in doing so, it erodes the norms of executive communication and democratic responsibility.
While the Commander-in-Chief Trophy presentation at the White House was meant to honor the Navy Midshipmen football team, it quickly became an unfocused and, at times, inappropriate platform for Donald Trump’s political grandstanding, personal anecdotes, and digressions. While such events typically blend formality with humor and celebration, this address often veered into incoherence, undermining both the dignity of the occasion and the honor intended for the service members.
First, the speech lacked structure and discipline. President Trump frequently interrupted his own points with tangents — joking about Vice President JD Vance taking a call from China, commenting on people’s appearances, and rambling about stealth design aesthetics. These asides detracted from the central purpose: honoring the Midshipmen's athletic and service accomplishments. The ceremony was meant to be about the team. Yet, Trump often made himself the focal point, referencing his own political grievances, military budget claims, and his administration’s alleged recruiting successes. The extensive detour into procurement and ammunition shortages, followed by jabs at the Biden administration, was inappropriate for what should have been a unifying, apolitical event.
Moreover, there was an alarming degree of casualness toward facts and decorum. Trump’s references to military spending, stealth technology skepticism, and suggestions that ship aesthetics matter more than functionality shows a concerning superficiality in matters of national defense. His comments about recruiting “going through the roof” lacked citation and were transparently self-congratulatory. Meanwhile, his claim that “we’re low on ammunition” — repeated in a joking tone — betrays a dangerous impulse to publicly discuss sensitive military preparedness.
His handling of names and honors was also uneven. While some players and officials received brief and sincere recognition, others were swept into awkward or one-sided exchanges. The tone was sometimes patronizing, as when he asked if a player was hard to tackle or commented on another’s physical size with borderline flippancy. The lack of prepared remarks or consistency resulted in an event that felt more like an impromptu campaign rally than a formal recognition of service academy athletes.
Coach Brian Newberry, in contrast, delivered a respectful and well-composed statement that refocused the event on the values of service, discipline, and gratitude. His words stood in stark contrast to the president’s meandering performance, providing the gravity and respect the occasion warranted.
The presentation should have been a solemn yet celebratory moment recognizing student-athletes who will soon be military officers. Instead, it was derailed by Trump’s self-indulgent commentary, political asides, and unpresidential tone. What could have been a moment of national pride was instead marred by distraction and missed opportunity.
A federal judge sharply rebuked the Trump administration for failing to comply with a court order to facilitate the return of Kilmer Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who was wrongly deported to El Salvador. U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis ordered expedited discovery and depositions by April 23, warning the Justice Department there would be no tolerance for delay or obfuscation. Abrego Garcia, who was granted “withholding of removal” protection in 2019 due to threats from gangs in El Salvador, was mistakenly deported last month and is now detained in El Salvador’s high-security CECOT prison.
Despite a Supreme Court ruling upholding the lower court's order to facilitate his release, the Justice Department has not provided a clear plan for his return. Instead, officials cited logistical and diplomatic limits, claiming they could not extract him from Salvadoran custody and pointing to Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele’s refusal to return him. The administration has also hinted at revoking Abrego Garcia’s protected status, alleging gang affiliations based on unverified intelligence. However, his lawyers argue there is no evidence he is involved with MS-13 and that he has no criminal record.
Judge Xinis criticized the administration’s lack of transparency, accusing it of ignoring both district and Supreme Court rulings, and said continued detention causes irreparable harm. She ordered the government to provide daily updates and warned she may hold officials in contempt if compliance is not forthcoming. The case underscores mounting legal and diplomatic tensions surrounding the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics and its use of foreign detention contracts.
A group of international students enrolled at public universities in Michigan are suing the Department of Homeland Security after their student immigration statuses were suddenly terminated, jeopardizing their ability to remain in the U.S. The ACLU of Michigan filed the lawsuit on behalf of four students from China, Nepal, and India, alleging that DHS unlawfully revoked their statuses in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System without adequate explanation or notice. The complaint emphasizes that none of the students have criminal convictions, immigration violations, or political protest activity.
The students’ legal team is seeking a temporary restraining order to restore their immigration status and protect them from arrest or deportation. During a federal court hearing in Detroit, the judge acknowledged the urgency of the case but has yet to issue a ruling. In the meantime, the students have resorted to remote learning out of fear of being detained by ICE agents.
The federal government argues that the students were flagged through criminal background checks and that emergency court relief is inappropriate for altering SEVIS records. However, the ACLU contends that the government has not substantiated any criminal behavior and notes that the few cited incidents, including uncharged domestic disputes and minor interactions with law enforcement, do not justify visa revocations.
The case highlights a broader crackdown under the Trump administration, which has drawn national scrutiny for revoking visas of international students, particularly those connected to campus activism or minor legal infractions. Over 1,200 such students and recent graduates have reportedly had their legal status altered. Critics warn this approach could severely damage the U.S. higher education system by deterring future international applicants.
The Trump administration is implementing a new immigration court policy allowing judges to dismiss asylum cases without holding hearings if applications are deemed legally deficient. Laid out in an April 11 memo from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), this directive is framed as a way to address the agency's ballooning backlog of over 4 million cases, including 1.5 million asylum claims. The move reflects a broader push by the administration to accelerate deportations and reduce the strain on the court system, especially after recent layoffs of over 100 EOIR personnel.
Critics argue this policy undermines due process, especially for asylum seekers who often lack legal representation and struggle with the complexities of U.S. immigration law. Without hearings, many may be deported based solely on incomplete or poorly prepared forms. Legal experts warn that eliminating merits hearings increases the risk of denying protection to individuals facing real persecution, potentially resulting in life-threatening consequences. The change is consistent with previous Trump-era efforts to limit asylum access and speed up immigration proceedings, including suspending southern border asylum applications and pressuring judges with case quotas.
I know what I wish she would’ve done, but I won’t even say it, but I’m certainly praying.