What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
May 21, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump’s bilateral meeting with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa quickly devolved into a combative, erratic, and racially charged spectacle that derailed any meaningful diplomatic progress. While the stated purpose was to discuss trade, development, and mutual cooperation, Trump commandeered the meeting to promote the discredited conspiracy theory of a “white genocide” against South African farmers. Rather than engaging constructively with President Ramaphosa, Trump launched into an extended and unsubstantiated tirade, complete with video exhibits and dramatic language, declaring that white South Africans were being murdered en masse and their land stolen—allegations that South African officials repeatedly countered with legal and statistical context. Trump’s conduct was more characteristic of a campaign rally than a state meeting, demanding lights be turned off so videos could be shown, presenting anecdotal horror stories as fact, and dismissing Ramaphosa’s nuanced rebuttals.
The meeting was further derailed by Trump’s open hostility toward reporters. When a journalist asked about a Qatari military jet donation to the U.S. Air Force—an entirely separate topic—Trump lashed out, calling the reporter stupid and accusing NBC of being “fake news.” This kind of outburst not only degraded the tone of the event but also reinforced Trump’s pattern of using media antagonism to deflect scrutiny. Throughout the session, Trump’s comments were volatile, meandering through topics such as Ukraine, Russia, Elon Musk, Boeing, the G20, and U.S. immigration, often without context or coherence. His habit of conflating unrelated geopolitical issues with personal grievances and cultural fears showcased an administration unmoored from strategic clarity.
Trump’s rhetoric framed the U.S.–South Africa relationship almost entirely in emotional and racial terms, offering no substantive vision for trade cooperation, technological assistance, or security partnership. He ignored President Ramaphosa’s attempts to steer the conversation toward development goals and crime reduction strategies. Instead, Trump continuously interrupted, challenging South Africa’s internal governance, casting doubt on its judicial integrity, and accusing it of state-sanctioned violence against white citizens. He framed the migration of white South Africans to the U.S. as a humanitarian crisis, contradicting his administration’s broader hostility toward other asylum seekers.
Trump’s remarks represented a severe breach of diplomatic norms. He dismissed Ramaphosa’s assertions about South Africa’s constitutional land reform policy and insisted, without evidence, that farmers were being systematically murdered with impunity. This undermined South African sovereignty and exposed the meeting as less a policy dialogue and more a platform for Trump’s ideological messaging.
President Ramaphosa and his delegation repeatedly attempted to shift the conversation back to the real concerns at hand—poverty, unemployment, crime, and economic growth—emphasizing the need for investment, trade, and international partnership. He stressed the government’s commitment to lawful land reform and repeatedly denounced the fringe voices Trump was amplifying. Yet Trump ignored this nuance, insisting that South Africa was in crisis, fixating on dramatic imagery of funerals and violent slogans from political opposition groups.
This bilateral meeting revealed a stark contrast between South Africa’s effort to present a vision of pragmatic partnership and Trump’s indulgence in racial grievance politics, disinformation, and combative theatrics. Rather than showcasing leadership or advancing U.S. foreign policy, Trump’s performance undermined American credibility, escalated tensions, and spotlighted his administration’s continuing descent into performative, conspiracy-driven diplomacy.
An event was held at the White House honoring the 2025 NCAA Men’s Basketball Champion Florida Gators, where Donald Trump gave a meandering and chaotic address that blended enthusiastic praise with disorganized commentary, political name-dropping, and personal tangents. While the event was intended to celebrate the team's historic achievement, the President’s delivery often diverted attention away from the players and toward his own political allies, personal observations, and nostalgic digressions.
Trump began with energetic applause for the team’s accomplishments and offered strong praise for Head Coach Todd Golden, calling him “unbelievable” and crediting him with inspiring the players. The President attempted to walk through the Gators’ successful season, referencing comeback wins, standout individual performances, and record-breaking moments. Players like Will Richard, Walter Clayton Jr., Thomas Haugh, and Denzel Aberdeen were mentioned with a mix of admiration and awkward banter. However, the speech was riddled with stumbles, name confusion, and repetitive commentary. He frequently mispronounced names, fumbled introductions, and veered off-topic to comment on height, hairlines, and unrelated political anecdotes.
Rather than maintaining focus on the basketball team, Trump dedicated a large portion of the speech to recognizing Florida politicians in attendance, including Senator Rick Scott, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and various state representatives. This roll call felt more like a campaign rally than a sports celebration. Moments that should have highlighted teamwork and athletic excellence were interrupted by irrelevant commentary, such as jokes about losing a commemorative coin or riffs on the Oval Office’s excitement. At one point, Trump fixated on Tim Tebow, a former football star, lavishing praise in a segment that eclipsed his comments on the actual 2025 basketball champions.
Grammatically, the speech lacked polish. Trump’s off-the-cuff style included repeated phrases, abrupt transitions, and awkward syntax, which made it difficult to follow. The President frequently brought the spotlight back to himself, whether by referencing his status as the 47th president or inviting the team to the Oval Office for a photo-op with a personalized jersey. Even when honoring key plays, such as a last-second layup or a clutch free throw, he often followed up with unrelated personal anecdotes or rhetorical questions that diluted the significance of the moment.
Ultimately, while the speech showcased Trump’s genuine excitement and recognition of Florida’s championship, it failed to provide a cohesive or dignified tribute. The address was less about the team’s hard-fought journey and more about Trump’s persona and political brand. The players deserved a more focused and eloquent celebration of their victory, one that matched the discipline, teamwork, and excellence they demonstrated throughout the season.
The U.S. government has formally accepted a Boeing 747-8 luxury jetliner from the Qatari government as a gift, and the Air Force has been assigned the task of modifying it for use as a presidential aircraft for Donald Trump, according to an anonymous Air Force spokesperson. The spokesperson, speaking to NPR, stated that preparations are underway to award a contract to retrofit the aircraft for "executive airlift," though the specifics remain classified.
The plane, reportedly worth several hundred million dollars, has been touted by Trump as an offer too good to refuse. He claimed it could be quickly converted for presidential use. However, aviation experts refute that claim, stressing that even the most luxurious commercial airliners lack the complex and classified systems required for a functioning Air Force One, including advanced defense systems and secure communications infrastructure. These modifications, they say, would take years and cost hundreds of millions—if not up to a billion dollars, according to Richard Aboulafia of AeroDynamic Advisory.
The gift has triggered constitutional concerns. Democratic lawmakers and ethics watchdogs argue that accepting the plane violates the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits federal officials from accepting gifts from foreign states without congressional approval. The White House has attempted to sidestep these concerns by stating that the plane was gifted not to Trump personally, but to the Department of Defense, and that all legal protocols are being followed. Trump, for his part, has said he will not use the aircraft after leaving office and instead plans to display it at his presidential library.
Currently, the Air Force One fleet consists of two Boeing 747-200B planes that have been in service since 1990. Efforts to replace them began under President Obama, with a 2016 contract awarded to Boeing to deliver two new 747-8 aircraft. Trump later negotiated a $3.9 billion deal for the project during his first term. However, due to extensive technical requirements and mismanagement, those replacements have been delayed and are not expected to be operational for several more years.
Experts emphasize that transforming a commercial aircraft into a secure, mobile command center—capable of surviving missile attacks, nuclear blasts, and ensuring seamless presidential command and control during wartime—is a deeply complex undertaking. Doug Birkey of the Mitchell Institute noted that even though the Qatari plane may offer greater luxury, it lacks the defense, security, and communications systems integral to the role of Air Force One. Installing such capabilities, he said, would require partially deconstructing the aircraft.
Despite Trump’s repeated emphasis that the plane was “free,” experts caution that outfitting it to meet national security standards will require a massive investment from U.S. taxpayers. While Trump presents the gift as a cost-saving measure, aviation analysts argue the reality is quite the opposite.
The Trump administration has announced it will end federal oversight agreements with the police departments in Minneapolis and Louisville, despite prior Justice Department findings of systemic civil rights violations. This marks a major rollback of civil rights enforcement and policing reform initiatives that began under the Biden administration and, in some cases, date back to the Obama era. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon stated that the DOJ will seek to dismiss ongoing litigation and withdraw findings of misconduct in eight total departments, including those in Phoenix, Memphis, Trenton, Mount Vernon, Oklahoma City, and the Louisiana State Police.
Dhillon argued that federal oversight amounts to unwarranted "micro-management" and should be rare, asserting that policing authority belongs with local communities. This decision effectively reverses years of federal investigations launched after the 2020 racial justice protests following the killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. Despite this shift, both Minneapolis and Louisville plan to continue implementing reforms independently. Minneapolis has opposed the DOJ's move in court, and both cities will retain independent monitors to track progress.
Civil rights attorney Ben Crump criticized the decision as an attempt to "erase truth" and undermine justice, emphasizing that consent decrees were hard-won through community struggle and advocacy. The DOJ’s move also reflects a broader ideological shift under Trump’s second term, as the Civil Rights Division has redirected its priorities toward conservative legal issues. Since Trump returned to office in January, the division has reportedly lost over 200 attorneys.
A federal judge, Brian Murphy, ruled that the Trump administration violated a court order by deporting migrants to countries other than their own, specifically South Sudan, without giving them sufficient notice or a chance to object. This violates Murphy’s earlier injunction against deporting individuals to so-called "third-party countries" without due process protections. A federal appeals court recently upheld this order, citing potential irreparable harm.
Despite this, at least eight migrants were deported, allegedly without a meaningful opportunity to challenge their removal. The government claimed a 24-hour notice was adequate, blaming any confusion on ambiguity in the court's ruling. However, Murphy criticized the administration's failure to provide due process, though he stopped short of holding them in contempt.
The judge declined to order the men's return but ruled they must be allowed to challenge their deportation from their current location—possibly a U.S. base in Djibouti. Plaintiffs raised concerns about access to legal counsel and interpreters in that setting.
In a press conference, DHS defended the deportations, labeling the migrants as criminals and refusing to confirm whether South Sudan was their destination, even though the press event was titled accordingly. The deportations also followed a separate Supreme Court ruling that found the administration violated due process in similar deportation cases.
The Trump administration has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to block discovery in a lawsuit challenging whether the Department of Government Efficiency, also known as the U.S. DOGE Service, qualifies as a federal agency subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, argues that DOGE is merely a presidential advisory body and not subject to FOIA, and that the lower court's decision permitting discovery, including depositions and internal document requests, undermines executive privilege and the separation of powers.
The lower court had ruled that limited discovery was necessary to determine if FOIA applies to DOGE, a decision upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court deemed the discovery “modest” and affirmed the government’s ability to assert privilege during the process. DOGE, which absorbed the U.S. Digital Service earlier in Trump’s term, is led by Amy Gleason and publicly associated with Elon Musk, a special government employee. The lawsuit, filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, is one of several challenging DOGE’s classification and operations. The Supreme Court has asked for a response from CREW by Friday.
The FDA’s newly announced policy to restrict updated COVID-19 vaccine approvals for the general population under 65—unless supported by large, randomized, placebo-controlled trials—marks a dramatic and controversial departure from prior public health strategy. While randomized trials are the gold standard in clinical research, requiring them for every future booster, especially for a virus that continues to evolve rapidly, appears both impractical and potentially dangerous. The long-established model for influenza vaccines, which uses immunogenicity and epidemiological data rather than fresh placebo trials each year, has long been accepted as a reasonable, efficient compromise between rigor and responsiveness. Applying a stricter standard to COVID-19 vaccines without clearly justifying the difference raises questions about the scientific consistency of the decision.
By limiting automatic vaccine access to seniors and high-risk individuals—including those with conditions such as diabetes, obesity, and depression—the FDA risks sidelining millions of younger, healthy Americans who may still want to maintain protection. Although estimates suggest that 100 to 200 million Americans will still qualify, the policy effectively removes the option of updated boosters for many, shifting vaccine access from a matter of personal choice to a matter of regulatory exclusion. This change also threatens to exacerbate health inequities, particularly among vulnerable populations who may not fit narrow clinical criteria but still face significant exposure risks due to socioeconomic or occupational factors.
Perhaps most troubling is the manner in which this policy was introduced. Instead of being unveiled through a comprehensive, data-driven public review process, it was outlined in a brief policy commentary published in the New England Journal of Medicine and accompanied by a video message from FDA officials. There were no open advisory committee meetings, no systematic public data review, and little stakeholder engagement. As CBS News medical contributor Dr. Céline Gounder observed, such a major policy shift typically demands much greater transparency. The rollout in this case resembled a bureaucratic fiat more than a deliberative, evidence-led regulatory decision.
Ironically, while this policy is presented as a more rigorous, scientific framework, it may undermine public confidence in vaccines and the institutions that regulate them. By framing previous booster campaigns as overly broad or unscientific, the FDA risks casting doubt on the safety and legitimacy of earlier shots, all of which were approved under the same regulatory body. This messaging could feed into vaccine skepticism by suggesting that past public health efforts were hasty or politically motivated, especially troubling given the already fragile public trust surrounding COVID-19 vaccination.
The political context of this decision also warrants scrutiny. The policy was introduced under the oversight of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime critic of vaccine mandates and mainstream public health institutions. The alignment of the new framework with Kennedy’s ideological positions—favoring high evidentiary thresholds, individual discretion, and a general skepticism toward universal vaccination strategies—suggests that the policy may reflect political influence as much as scientific judgment. With the involvement of FDA leaders like Dr. Vinay Prasad and Dr. Martin Makary, both of whom have criticized prior U.S. vaccination efforts, the shift reads not only as a regulatory tightening but also as an ideological rebuke of the past administration’s public health approach.
While the FDA’s new policy may appear to elevate scientific standards, it risks sacrificing timely access, public trust, and health equity in the process. The decision reflects a rigid, technocratic posture that may hinder rather than help the nation’s pandemic response. The lack of transparency, the political overtones, and the practical implications all point to a deeply flawed recalibration of vaccine policy at a time when clear, accessible, and flexible public health guidance is still urgently needed.
Sources: News 9 and New England Journal of Medicine
A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to reinstate millions of dollars in federal grants that were previously frozen, ruling the cancellations unconstitutional. The lawsuit, led by the Southern Environmental Law Center and the Public Rights Project, involved six cities and 13 nonprofits whose programs were impacted, including initiatives in energy-efficient housing and solar-powered composting.
The ruling restores 32 of 38 grants and delivers a significant win for cities like Nashville, which will now receive $14 million in reinstated funding for electric vehicle charging stations and new bikeways. The judge’s decision emphasized that the administration lacked the constitutional authority to rescind congressionally approved funds, reinforcing the principle of separation of powers.
While the Trump administration plans to appeal, plaintiffs say they are prepared to defend the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court. Separately, Nashville is also suing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services over the cancellation of $11 billion in public health funds, which led to halted vaccine clinics and cut services for the homeless.