What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
February 26, 2025 Recap
President Trump’s first cabinet meeting of his new term was a sprawling, often disorganized discussion that touched on a wide range of domestic and foreign policy issues. The meeting revealed a lack of coherence in policy explanations, frequent digressions, and an overreliance on vague assurances rather than concrete details. His tendency to self-congratulate—often referencing his election victory and supposed historic achievements—came at the expense of policy depth, making the meeting feel more like a rally than a structured government discussion.
One of the most notable topics was Trump’s approach to Ukraine and Russia. He claimed to have secured an agreement with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, emphasizing economic cooperation on rare earth minerals. However, he provided little clarity on the security aspects of the deal, brushing off concerns about territorial concessions to Russia. His insistence that Europe should take the lead on security while the U.S. focuses on financial recovery suggested a transactional approach rather than a strategic foreign policy. When pressed on whether the U.S. would loosen sanctions on Russia as part of negotiations, he avoided a direct answer, reinforcing concerns that his administration may be willing to concede ground to Moscow in exchange for economic gains.
Regarding fiscal policy, Trump made sweeping promises to cut government waste through an initiative led by Elon Musk called "Doge." Musk claimed that the administration could eliminate a trillion dollars in fraud and inefficiency, yet the primary method for identifying waste appeared to be sending government employees an email asking them to justify their jobs. Those who failed to respond were deemed unnecessary and at risk of termination. This approach raises serious concerns about due process and the fairness of such mass layoffs. Trump also introduced his controversial “gold card” plan, allowing wealthy individuals to purchase U.S. residency for $5 million. While he argued this would generate trillions in revenue and pay off the national debt, the proposal was vague, and its ethical implications were largely ignored.
Trump also took credit for an unprecedented drop in illegal border crossings, though he provided no concrete data to support this claim. His rhetoric focused more on attacking previous administrations than explaining the mechanisms behind this supposed success. Meanwhile, he reiterated his plan to impose heavy tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and the European Union, arguing that these countries had long exploited the United States. His assertion that the European Union was "formed to screw the United States" reflects an overly simplistic and adversarial view of global trade relationships. While he dismissed concerns about retaliation, economic experts might argue that such aggressive protectionism could provoke trade wars and economic instability.
Elon Musk's prominence in the meeting also raised questions about the appropriateness of his influence over government policy. His casual tone, laced with humor and sarcasm, underscored his unconventional approach but also suggested a lack of deep policy expertise. His claim that a trillion dollars in government waste could be eliminated appeared overly optimistic, with little substantive evidence provided.
Religious overtones were also present, as the meeting opened with a prayer emphasizing divine guidance for the administration. While this may resonate with specific segments of Trump's base, it raises questions about the separation of church and state, particularly in a setting meant to discuss governance. Furthermore, Trump’s informal and, at times, dismissive tone—referring to foreign leaders casually and frequently interrupting others—detracted from the professionalism expected in such a setting.
The meeting lacked structured policy discussions and actionable strategies. Trump leaned heavily on broad claims, political bravado, and vague assurances rather than detailed policy outlines. His approach signaled a term likely defined by aggressive rhetoric, sweeping executive actions, and a focus on high-profile but potentially impractical policy initiatives. If this first meeting is any indication, the administration may face significant challenges in translating Trump’s ambitious declarations into effective governance.
President Trump suggested a possible one-month delay on steep tariffs for Mexican and Canadian imports, moving the deadline to April 2. However, a White House official maintained that the original March 4 deadline still stood, pending border security and fentanyl trafficking measures. His remarks caused fluctuations in the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso, with Canada warning of retaliation and Mexico planning discussions with U.S. trade officials.
Trump also announced a 25% "reciprocal" tariff on European cars and goods, accusing the EU of unfair trade practices and prompting warnings of firm retaliation from the European Commission. Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate confirmed Jamieson Greer as U.S. Trade Representative, with plans to renegotiate the USMCA and tighten trade rules to limit Chinese materials in the automotive and aerospace industries.
These developments signal rising trade tensions with Canada, Mexico, and the EU as key partners prepare for potential economic retaliation and renegotiations.
President Trump issued an executive order titled “Department of Government Efficiency Cost Efficiency Initiative,” introducing a broad initiative to enhance fiscal responsibility, transparency, and efficiency in federal spending. The order mandates the creation of a centralized system within agencies to track payments related to contracts, grants, and loans, requiring written justifications for each expenditure. While this approach seeks to curb waste and promote accountability, its execution raises concerns about feasibility, bureaucratic redundancies, and potential disruptions to government operations.
The order requires public justification for spending decisions whenever legally permissible. Additionally, the directive enforces fiscal discipline through renegotiating contracts, limiting non-essential travel, and temporarily freezing government-issued credit cards. The plan to reassess federal real estate holdings also has the potential to eliminate wasteful spending on underutilized properties.
However, the order’s approach to efficiency paradoxically introduces new layers of bureaucracy that could slow agency operations rather than streamline them. The creation of DOGE Team Leads and additional oversight mechanisms may lead to bottlenecks, as agency heads must now pause payments and review contracts at an accelerated pace. The 30-day review period for existing contracts and grants, particularly those tied to educational institutions and foreign entities, could delay funding for crucial services. While the order grants agency heads discretion in applying for exemptions, this flexibility undermines its core objectives, as agencies may exploit these loopholes to maintain existing spending patterns.
Another significant concern is the selective nature of the cost-cutting measures. The order explicitly exempts law enforcement, military, and intelligence-related expenditures while targeting educational and foreign-related contracts for immediate review. While national security justifications may warrant some exclusions, this focus raises concerns about ideological bias rather than a truly comprehensive approach to government efficiency. Additionally, while the executive order suggests that payment justifications should be made publicly available, the caveat that disclosures will be limited “to the extent permitted by law” leaves room for selective transparency, potentially undermining public trust.
While this executive order is framed as a step toward greater accountability and efficiency, its broad exemptions, bureaucratic burdens, and lack of concrete enforcement mechanisms cast doubt on its effectiveness. Rather than eliminating wasteful spending in a balanced and systematic manner, it risks becoming more of a political statement than a functional reform. Without a more thoughtful implementation strategy, the initiative may ultimately create inefficiencies rather than resolve them.
A controversial AI-generated video posted by President Trump on his own social media outlet has drawn backlash from Arabs and Muslims both in the United States and internationally. The video depicts an imagined future where Gaza, currently devastated by conflict, is transformed into a glamorous Riviera-style resort named "TRUMP GAZA." The imagery includes Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sunbathing, scenes of destruction being replaced with luxury buildings, and a towering golden statue of Trump.
The video also shows children running out of rubble onto an extravagant beachfront lined with palm trees. Surreal scenes include men in apparent drag dancing in bikinis, a belly dancer performing for Trump, and a man resembling Elon Musk being showered with U.S. cash.
This post comes weeks after Trump suggested that the U.S. should take over the Gaza Strip and relocate Palestinians. His remarks and the video have intensified criticism, particularly from Palestinian communities. In Gaza, where many residents have limited internet access, NPR’s Gaza producer Anas Baba shared the video with local residents. 20-year-old Mohamed Abdelrahman rejected the vision portrayed, stating:
"We won't be lured by a few statues and money. Leave us alone and let us rebuild our homes by ourselves."
In the U.S., the video has also drawn condemnation from Arab-American leaders. Faye Nemer, the CEO and founder of the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) American Chamber of Commerce in Dearborn, Michigan, issued a statement calling the video "offensive and counterproductive to peace talks." Notably, Nemer, who voted for Trump in November, is urging him to remove the video and issue a "reconciliatory statement."
When asked about the video and the president’s broader messaging on Gaza, the White House defended Trump’s vision. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly stated:
"As President Trump has said, Gaza in its current state is [uninhabitable] for any human being."
She added that Trump sees U.S. involvement in Gaza’s rebuilding as a way to create new, “beautiful” communities for Palestinians and improve regional conditions for future generations. However, the video’s portrayal and the underlying policy implications have deepened concerns about the administration’s approach to the ongoing crisis.
The Trump administration announced a new policy requiring all individuals in the U.S. illegally to register with the government, provide fingerprints, and disclose their address. Failure to comply could result in fines or prosecution. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) justified this policy by citing the Immigration and Nationality Act, emphasizing that this law had been long ignored but would now be enforced.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service will establish a registration form and process. This initiative aligns with President Trump’s campaign promise to increase deportations and secure the border. The administration stated that initial deportation efforts would prioritize individuals with criminal records.
The National Immigration Law Center, an advocacy group, compared this effort to the Alien Registration Act of 1940, which was used to identify potential national security threats. The organization warned that the new registry could serve as a tool for widespread deportations. It remains uncertain how many undocumented immigrants would voluntarily come forward to register.
The Trump administration's directive for mass layoffs in federal agencies, as outlined in a memo by Budget Director Russell Vought and Acting Office of Personnel Management Director Charles Ezell, raises significant concerns about governance, workforce stability, and public service efficiency. The justification that the federal government is inefficient and wasteful relies on broad claims without substantive analysis of which programs are truly ineffective versus those that provide essential services to the American public.
The call for "large-scale reductions in force" appears more focused on downsizing to cut costs than on a strategic effort to improve efficiency. The administration’s emphasis on removing “underperforming employees” and automating tasks may result in the loss of institutional knowledge and expertise critical to public administration. Moreover, the accelerated timeline—demanding initial reorganization plans by March and full implementation by September—suggests a rushed process that could lead to unintended consequences, including disruptions in essential government functions.
A particularly troubling aspect is the reported role of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency initiative. This initiative has already led to thousands of terminations and introduced an unorthodox employee evaluation method requiring workers to justify their jobs through an email directed by Musk. Trump has endorsed this approach, which raises questions about transparency, fairness, and due process in personnel management. The lack of clear guidance from agency leadership and conflicting directives add to the uncertainty and anxiety among federal workers.
Furthermore, the push to relocate agency offices away from Washington, D.C., under the guise of cost-cutting, could result in dismantling key government functions without sufficient planning. While decentralization can have merits, an abrupt and poorly coordinated approach may weaken agencies’ ability to fulfill their missions effectively.
Ultimately, this directive reflects a broader ideological push toward downsizing government rather than a thoughtful, data-driven approach to reform. While efficiency and accountability are worthwhile goals, the administration’s strategy appears to prioritize political optics over the long-term functionality of federal agencies. The risk is not just a leaner bureaucracy but one less capable of effectively serving the public.
President Trump warned that approximately 1 million federal employees who failed to respond to emails asking them to list "five things" they accomplished are "on the bubble," implying they could lose their jobs.
During a Cabinet meeting, Trump introduced Elon Musk, who leads the administration's cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Musk announced plans to send a follow-up email to assess the existence of federal employees, alleging without evidence that some workers might be deceased or fictional individuals still receiving paychecks.
The emails created confusion among federal workers, with some Cabinet members advising employees not to respond immediately. Trump dismissed dissent, joking that those who disagreed would be "thrown out."
Musk, aiming to cut $1 trillion from the nearly $7 trillion budget, admitted to errors in cost-cutting measures, such as mistakenly canceling Ebola prevention programs, which were later reinstated. His role and cost-cutting efforts sparked protests outside the Office of Personnel Management, where demonstrators demanded his removal.
The Trump administration announced in a court filing that it has decided to terminate most U.S. foreign aid contracts and grants despite ongoing legal battles. The decision follows a review of agreements, which resulted in the cancellation of nearly 5,800 USAID awards and 4,100 State Department awards, while a smaller number remains in place.
The administration has largely ignored a February 13 court order from U.S. District Judge Amir Ali to release frozen aid payments, arguing it has the right to suspend agreements while reviewing them. The government now claims to expedite payments for past work before January 24 but warns full payments could take weeks.
The aid freeze, part of Trump’s broader order to pause all foreign aid on his first day in office, has disrupted global humanitarian efforts, including food and medical aid. Additionally, the administration has placed most USAID staff on paid administrative leave and eliminated 1,600 positions, a move challenged by employee unions.
Judge Ali and another federal judge have criticized the administration for disregarding court orders. Plaintiffs, including humanitarian and development organizations, argue Trump has unlawfully dismantled an independent agency and defied congressional spending authority. Some organizations say they may be forced to shut down within days if payments are not made. The administration has appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to halt the enforcement of Ali's order while the case proceeds.
President Trump announced that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will undergo major cuts. Administrator Lee Zeldin is considering reducing the agency’s workforce by approximately 65%. While Trump framed the cuts as a way to streamline efficiency, a White House official clarified that the reduction would include staff and overall spending cuts.
The justification for these cuts, framed as an efficiency measure, lacks transparency. While the administration claims it aims to eliminate “wasteful spending,” it offers little clarity on how such drastic reductions will maintain the EPA’s core mission of enforcing clean air, water, and land regulations. With the agency already seeking to rebuild its capacity after previous budget constraints, these cuts could severely undermine its ability to respond to environmental hazards, enforce laws, and conduct essential scientific research.
The EPA, which had over 15,000 employees in the 2024 fiscal year, had previously sought to increase its workforce to bolster its regulatory capacity. Critics, including Sierra Club Executive Director Ben Jealous, argue that the cuts are a deliberate attempt to weaken environmental protections, endanger public health, and worsen climate-related disasters.
Trump’s directive for federal agencies to follow the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) push for sweeping layoffs further reveals a broader agenda that prioritizes cost-cutting and deregulation over responsible governance. The involvement of figures like Elon Musk in shaping government policy raises questions about corporate influence over federal decision-making.
These proposed EPA cuts reflect a familiar pattern: prioritizing short-term economic gains and industry interests over long-term environmental and public health protections. If enacted, they could weaken the nation’s ability to safeguard natural resources and combat climate change, with consequences that will be felt for generations.
Whew. What a day. All captured inone post.