What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
April 14, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump’s early morning Truth Social post reflects a familiar blend of blame-shifting, historical revisionism, and emotionally charged rhetoric, but it also raises serious concerns about leadership accountability and factual accuracy. His claim that the war between Russia and Ukraine is “Biden’s war” conveniently ignores the complex geopolitical reality that spans multiple administrations, including his own. The conflict began in February 2022, during Biden’s first term. Still, Trump’s own actions—such as undermining U.S. support for Ukraine, withholding military aid in an effort that led to his first impeachment, and repeatedly praising Vladimir Putin—cannot be erased from the historical record. His declaration that he “had no problem in preventing it” is self-serving and unsubstantiated.
By stating, “I just got here,” Trump attempts to absolve himself of any connection to current global crises, even while claiming to be diligently working to resolve them. This posture is contradictory and unbecoming of a sitting president who should be projecting steadiness and responsibility. The most egregious portion of the post is his insertion of the baseless claim that the 2020 election was “RIGGED” as the cause of the war. This is a dangerous and dishonest attempt to link a humanitarian catastrophe to his personal political grievances. No credible evidence has ever supported widespread fraud in that election, and to continue invoking this narrative in the context of an international conflict is deeply irresponsible.
Trump’s vilification of both President Zelenskyy and President Biden for “allowing this travesty to begin” is not only factually inaccurate but also diplomatically reckless. It echoes Kremlin talking points by shifting blame away from the aggressor—Russia—and toward the very leaders working to defend Ukraine’s sovereignty. This framing undermines U.S. credibility on the world stage and shows a troubling disregard for the complexity and consequences of the war. Finally, Trump’s overuse of capital letters and exclamatory phrases like “SO SAD!” offers little more than emotional theatrics. It may energize his base, but it lacks the depth, nuance, and strategic vision expected from a world leader addressing an ongoing war. Ultimately, this post serves more as a vehicle for personal vindication than a meaningful statement of policy or leadership.
The Oval Office meeting between Donald Trump and El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele was less a diplomatic exchange and more a theatrical display of mutual admiration, authoritarian rhetoric, and nationalist bravado. Trump’s remarks were sprawling and often incoherent, filled with self-congratulation, unverified statistics, and populist slogans. His conversational tone frequently veered into rambling tangents, making sweeping claims about tariffs, crime, immigration, and global conflict without offering meaningful policy clarity. Bukele, for his part, mirrored Trump’s law-and-order messaging, proudly highlighting El Salvador’s transformation from what he called “the murder capital of the world” into the “safest country in the Western Hemisphere” while ignoring ongoing international concerns about mass incarceration due process, and human rights under his regime.
The conversation glorified punitive policies and carceral authoritarianism, with both leaders exchanging praise for hardline tactics and expanding prison infrastructure. Trump’s open suggestion that the U.S. could deport its own citizens—if deemed violent or unfit—represents a serious breach of constitutional norms and a chilling embrace of state overreach. The discussion of immigration was equally alarming, defined by dehumanizing rhetoric, exaggerated claims about criminal migrants, and a celebration of mass deportations as political victories. Trump repeated the unsubstantiated narrative that foreign nations were “emptying their prisons” into the U.S., citing large numbers of “known murderers” without evidence and ignoring the legal and humanitarian realities of immigration.
The issue of the wrongfully deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia was twisted into an opportunity for Trump and his aides, including Stephen Miller, to launch a partisan attack on the judiciary. They dismissed a Supreme Court directive to “facilitate” the migrant’s return, reframing the order as overreach and positioning the courts as illegitimate obstacles to executive authority. The contempt expressed for legal institutions—coupled with suggestions that judicial rulings can be ignored based on executive discretion—reflects a dangerous disregard for constitutional checks and balances.
Cultural wedge issues were also weaponized during the conversation. Trump and Bukele mocked transgender athletes and gender equity protections, framing them as absurd liberal overreach and using them as fodder for pre-election talking points. Trump even admitted he planned to “save” such discussions for strategic electoral impact, revealing the cynicism behind the administration’s culture war politics. Both leaders equated good governance with brute force, incarceration, and punishment, portraying criminal justice as a contest of strength rather than a function of democracy or rule of law.
The event was not a serious policy meeting but a populist spectacle that leaned heavily on fear, flattery, and authoritarian posturing. The tone was hostile to democratic norms, hostile to the press, and brazenly dismissive of legal and moral accountability. It reinforced the troubling trajectory of Trump’s second-term leadership: unapologetically repressive, constitutionally reckless, and governed more by grievance and performance than coherent governance.
Donald Trump’s remarks during the White House ceremony honoring the 2024 College Football National Champions, The Ohio State University Buckeyes, were emblematic of his second-term communication style: meandering, self-centered, politically loaded, and frequently inappropriate for the occasion. What should have been a dignified tribute to athletic excellence, teamwork, and perseverance devolved into a chaotic display of self-promotion, factual inaccuracy, and performative ad-libbing. Rather than centering the team and their historic accomplishment—the first national title under the expanded 12-team playoff—Trump routinely redirected attention to himself, using the ceremony as a vehicle for political messaging and personal validation.
The speech lacked any clear structure. Trump bounced between congratulating individual players and delivering campaign-style monologues about his electoral success in Ohio, his Oval Office renovations, and grievances about the media and President Biden. These detours were not brief flourishes but dominant features of his address. He repeatedly referenced his 2020 and 2024 election victories in Ohio, suggested that Biden “didn’t show up” for East Palestine, and offered unsolicited commentary on the “Trump touches” added to the White House. This kind of grandstanding might work at a rally, but it came off as self-indulgent and inappropriate at a ceremonial event meant to honor student-athletes.
Much of the speech leaned on superficial praise, reducing players to their physical appearance—“That’s a good looking group,” “he’s going to be so rich,” “Look at the size of these guys”—while neglecting any serious commentary on their academic achievements, leadership qualities, or personal growth. His repeated jokes about being intimidated by their size or implying players should remain seated at a lower level to avoid overshadowing him visually came off as insecure and awkward. Moreover, Trump misstated facts—claiming Coach Ryan Day was in his 60s, when Day is in his mid-40s—and often appeared unfamiliar with key player names or game details, which he compensated for with forced enthusiasm and vague compliments. His fixation on the aesthetics of the players, the Oval Office, and his own electoral performance stood in contrast to what should have been a thoughtful and focused recognition of hard-earned success.
Even his attempts at humor fell flat or bordered on inappropriate. Joking that a Michigan fan in the room was carrying a “dangerous weapon” and suggesting the Secret Service should intervene played into culture-war theatrics rather than fostering unity or sportsmanship. The constant return to political themes—both overt and implied—served to politicize an event that is traditionally a moment of national unity. Trump’s lack of decorum was not just a distraction; it undermined the ceremonial gravitas that the team, university, and fans deserved.
Although more composed, Vice President J.D. Vance’s remarks still contained political jabs, including a story about a bet with Senator Ted Cruz and more praise for Trump than for the team. Only Coach Day delivered the kind of statement expected at such an event—measured, gracious, focused, and inspiring. His invocation of Theodore Roosevelt’s “Man in the Arena” quote was not only thematically appropriate but served as a pointed contrast to the spectacle that had preceded it. His speech reaffirmed the values of discipline, brotherhood, and perseverance and gave the event a moment of real weight.
Ultimately, the ceremony reflected more about the president than the players. The athletes and staff deserved a statesmanlike moment in the national spotlight. Instead, they were made into props in a disjointed performance driven by Trump’s political brand, not the honor of their achievement. The result was a deeply unserious and often uncomfortable display that did little to celebrate what should have been a solemn, proud, and nonpartisan occasion.
Harvard University is defying a set of demands from the Trump administration that could put $9 billion in federal funding at risk. President Alan Garber stated that Harvard would not compromise its independence or constitutional rights, rejecting proposals to end DEI programs, adopt merit-based admissions and hiring, and cooperate with immigration enforcement. The Trump administration accused Harvard of failing to meet civil rights and intellectual standards tied to federal support and demanded sweeping changes, including governance restructuring and audits for “viewpoint diversity.”
Garber defended Harvard's autonomy, arguing the federal demands violate First Amendment protections and exceed governmental authority under Title VI. He affirmed the university’s commitment to a supportive learning environment and combating antisemitism but said the administration's terms infringe on academic freedom.
This marks the first major university to openly reject such conditions. In contrast, Columbia University recently agreed to similar demands after losing federal funding amid protests. The Trump administration has also suspended over $1.7 billion in funding to Cornell and Northwestern as part of ongoing civil rights investigations.
The Trump administration is facing a lawsuit for allegedly violating federal law by taking down a public website that displayed how federal funds are distributed to agencies. The lawsuit, filed by the nonprofit Protect Democracy Project, claims the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) removed the database without explanation, defying a transparency requirement enacted under the Biden administration. This law mandates that apportionments — the process of allocating congressionally approved funds to agencies in installments — be publicly disclosed.
Critics argue the removal obstructs oversight and allows the administration to hide potentially improper use of funds. OMB Director Russell Vought defended the decision, claiming the disclosures involved “predecisional and deliberative” information. However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) rejected that rationale, stating apportionments are legally binding and therefore not predecisional. GAO emphasized that while some information might be sensitive, the law requires OMB to publish the data online.
This lawsuit is one of multiple legal actions against the administration over the removal, with watchdog group CREW also suing in response to the site's removal.
A legal advocacy group, the Liberty Justice Center, filed a lawsuit on Monday in the U.S. Court of International Trade challenging President Donald Trump's recently imposed tariffs. Representing five small U.S. businesses that import goods from affected countries, the group argues that Trump overstepped his constitutional authority, which reserves tax-setting powers — including tariffs — for Congress.
The lawsuit targets Trump's April 2 “Liberation Day” tariffs and additional duties on Chinese imports. It also contests his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), asserting that the law doesn't authorize presidents to impose tariffs. The plaintiffs seek to block the tariffs' enforcement and have the court declare Trump's actions unlawful. A similar case is underway in Florida federal court.
Rennie Glasgow, a Social Security claims technical expert and American Federation of Government Employees member, testified to the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee that the Trump administration's recent staffing cuts and policy changes are drastically undermining public access to Social Security benefits. Staffing is at a 50-year low, and the Schenectady, NY office alone lost seven experienced employees. Because training new staff takes years, decades of institutional knowledge are lost.
Changes like a new two-step identity verification process are expected to generate up to 80,000 additional in-person visits, worsening already overwhelmed field offices. Additional policy modifications now force individuals with Social Security overpayments to repay 100% of their benefits instead of the previous 10%, increasing both public distress and office workloads.
Meanwhile, office closures in places like White Plains and Poughkeepsie will require seniors and disabled individuals to travel farther for service—despite fewer staff and resources. Glasgow warned that administrative burdens and the loss of preventative measures like integrity reviews will only increase errors, hardship, and delays. He called the situation a “deliberate sabotage” of the system, placing earned benefits increasingly out of reach for working Americans.
Source: American Federation of Government Employees
The proposal by the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace to have Attorney General Pam Bondi invalidate a slew of National Labor Relations Board decisions is not just legally dubious—it’s a frontal assault on the integrity of American labor law and administrative governance. This effort, which seeks to overturn more than a dozen Biden-era rulings with a simple directive from the Attorney General, fundamentally misunderstands the structure of the National Labor Relations Board and its legal framework.
The NLRB is an independent agency tasked with adjudicating labor disputes based on precedent, evidence, and expert interpretation of labor law—not political whim. CDW’s request would sidestep the normal and lawful avenues of appeal and legal revision, which include court challenges and petitions for the Board to revisit precedent. Instead, it seeks to replace that entire process with arbitrary executive fiat, empowering a political appointee with no labor law expertise to erase precedent and effectively rewrite labor policy overnight.
The invocation of a Trump executive order that allegedly grants the attorney general authority over independent agencies is especially dangerous. Not only does this interpretation lack any basis in federal statute, but it also represents a gross overreach of executive power. If accepted, it would set a precedent that allows the Executive Branch to override the decisions of expert administrative bodies unilaterally—gutting the A P A’s requirement for “reasoned decision-making” and turning labor law into a tool of partisan convenience.
What CDW advocates would not just undermine the NLRB—it would obliterate the very concept of administrative continuity. Labor law would become unpredictable and chaotic, with each new administration empowered to undo decades of legal precedent with the stroke of a pen. Workers and employers alike would suffer from a legal environment so unstable that it would discourage good-faith bargaining, invite litigation, and increase the likelihood of labor unrest.
This proposal is not a conservative adjustment to regulatory policy—it’s a reckless attempt to dismantle the rule of law in labor relations. The business community should be deeply alarmed by the implications. If precedent and process are this easily discarded today in favor of anti-union ideology, there is nothing to stop a future administration from using the same unlawful tactic in the opposite direction. The result would be a labor system in permanent flux, where no party—employer or employee—can plan with confidence or security.
In short, CDW’s proposal is a legal, procedural, and ethical failure. It should be resoundingly rejected by courts and any employer or policymaker who values fairness, stability, and the fundamental principles of American labor law.
Source: Economic Policy Institute
Houston-based law firm Susman Godfrey has filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration after an executive order directed federal agencies to cancel contracts with the firm. The order, which also blocks its employees from security clearances and future hiring, claims the firm engaged in “discriminatory” diversity hiring practices and acted against “critical American interests.”
Susman Godfrey, who notably represented Dominion Voting Systems in its $787 million defamation settlement with Fox News, says the order is unconstitutional retaliation for its legal work defending the legitimacy of the 2020 election. The firm has also filed suits against Trump allies like Mike Lindell and Rudy Giuliani.
The lawsuit argues the executive order violates the First and Fifth Amendments and seeks to have it declared unconstitutional. Susman Godfrey is requesting injunctive relief and for all related federal directives to be rescinded. The firm condemned the order as a dangerous precedent for punishing legal advocacy.
The Trump administration’s closure of five regional Head Start offices—including the one serving New Jersey—has sparked concern and uncertainty among providers, though services are still ongoing. The move is part of a broader cost-cutting initiative led by Elon Musk’s government efficiency task force, which aims to save $1.8 billion annually by reducing the Department of Health and Human Services workforce by 10,000 jobs.
New Jersey’s Head Start providers say the closure of the New York-based Region 2 office has disrupted communication and threatens the quality of services. Advocates like Bonnie Eggenburg and Isaac Dorsey stress the importance of longstanding relationships with regional staff who understand local needs. They fear the closure could impact upcoming funding and reduce support for essential family services.
Despite this, dedicated staff and alumni of the program, like Gloria Andritsopoulos, continue to underscore Head Start’s life-changing impact. Meanwhile, Project 2025—an influential conservative policy agenda tied to Trump’s second-term goals—proposes eliminating Head Start altogether, adding to fears about the program's future. Dorsey warns that such cuts would be “devastating,” especially as families and children are still recovering from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
I don’t know how you do this without crying or screaming. Sending warm thoughts your way. ✌🏻