What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
January 31, 2025 Recap
Today’s White House press briefing, led by Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, showcased the Trump administration’s aggressive stance on immigration, trade, education, and national security. While the briefing aimed to project strength, accountability, and efficiency, several key points raised concerns about policy implications, rhetoric, and governance strategies.
One of the most striking aspects of the briefing was the response to the catastrophic air collision at Reagan National Airport, which tragically claimed 67 lives. While President Trump swiftly ordered an investigation and a review of FAA hiring practices, the administration’s emphasis on DEI hiring as a potential cause of aviation failures seems to politicize a tragedy before conclusive evidence is available. The framing suggests that diversity-focused hiring standards, rather than systemic regulatory failures or budgetary constraints, were to blame, an assertion made without presenting specific data. This risks turning a national tragedy into a partisan talking point rather than addressing legitimate aviation safety concerns.
The administration’s immigration policies were another focal point of the briefing, underscoring harsh enforcement measures and expanded deportation efforts. The Laken Riley Act, which mandates federal detention of illegal immigrants accused of violent crimes, was framed as a common-sense security measure. However, its broad scope raises due process concerns, particularly regarding how it might impact asylum seekers and individuals awaiting legal proceedings. Additionally, the announcement that Guantanamo Bay will be expanded to detain criminal illegal immigrants is a dramatic and controversial escalation, raising human rights concerns. While the administration presents this as a necessary law-and-order measure, it blurs the line between national security detention and immigration enforcement. This move could face legal and ethical challenges.
On the education front, the administration’s approach appears to prioritize ideological battles over systemic reform. The banning of federal funding for gender ideology and critical race theory aligns with Trump’s previous attacks on progressive education policies. Yet, it does little to address the underlying issue of declining literacy rates. While school choice expansion may provide families with more educational options, the administration failed to outline how public schools will be improved, leaving concerns about whether these policies shift resources rather than fixing systemic deficiencies.
The administration’s economic policies, particularly the decision to impose 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada and a 10% tariff on China, reflect Trump’s signature protectionist stance. While tariffs are framed as a way to punish nations for allowing illegal fentanyl and unauthorized migration, the economic impact on American consumers is largely ignored. The administration failed to address how these tariffs might increase costs for businesses and households, especially when inflation remains a key concern. The dismissive response to whether these tariffs could lead to price increases suggests that economic consequences have not been thoroughly considered.
In foreign policy, the briefing highlighted Special Envoy Rick Grenell’s mission to Venezuela, where he is negotiating the deportation of Venezuelan criminals and the return of American detainees. However, the administration dodged questions about whether this signals recognition of Nicolás Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate leader, contradicting past U.S. policy that supported opposition candidate Edmundo González. Similarly, the administration’s plans to reassess U.S. military presence in Syria were vague, leaving uncertainty about whether Trump’s past “America First” isolationist policies could return in a way that undermines strategic alliances.
One of the most concerning aspects of the briefing was the tone and rhetoric used by both Leavitt and President Trump himself. Trump’s frequent use of profanity, including an expletive used in reference to a former cabinet official, was defended as a reflection of public sentiment rather than an undisciplined lapse in decorum. While this may resonate with his base, it sets a concerning precedent for presidential communication, eroding traditional standards of professionalism and diplomatic discourse.
Additionally, the administration’s focus on rolling back DEI policies extended beyond hiring, as evidenced by reports that federal agencies were canceling Black History Month events to align with Trump’s stance. While the administration confirmed that Trump will sign a Black History Month proclamation, the broader message suggests that cultural and historical recognition is being deprioritized in favor of ideological uniformity.
A U.S. District Judge in Boston, George O’Toole, has temporarily blocked federal prison officials from transferring a transgender woman, Maria Moe (a pseudonym), from a women's prison to a men's facility and denying her gender-affirming care. The decision comes in response to a lawsuit challenging an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on his first day back in office. The order mandates that federal prisons only recognize two biological sexes, house transgender women in men's facilities, and cease funding gender-affirming medical care for inmates.
Judge O’Toole, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, issued a temporary restraining order to keep Moe in a women's facility and maintain her medical treatment while the court considers whether to grant a more extended injunction. The case, initially sealed, was unsealed Thursday during a hearing.
Moe’s lawyers, including LGBTQ rights group GLAD, argued that her transfer to a men’s prison would expose her to extreme risks of violence and sexual assault. They also claimed that Trump’s order violated her Fifth Amendment due process rights by discriminating based on sex and her Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston declined to comment. Meanwhile, three other transgender women in federal prison filed a separate lawsuit in Washington, D.C., challenging the same policy.
The Trump administration has directed federal agencies to compile lists of employees still on probationary periods, raising concerns about potential mass firings. Probationary employees, typically within their first one to two years of service, can be dismissed quickly without recourse. Reports from various agencies, including the IRS, EPA, and Homeland Security, confirm employees are being asked to justify their roles and backgrounds.
This effort aligns with Trump’s broader push to downsize the federal workforce. This includes reinstating Schedule F (now renamed Schedule Policy/Career), which seeks to strip civil service protections and make employees at-will who can be fired for political reasons. Some new hires have already received termination warnings.
Experts and employees fear the lists could be used for politically motivated dismissals, with speculation that the administration aims to purge individuals based on their roles or affiliations. Legal experts warn this could lead to litigation, as agencies must still provide justification for firings. Critics argue the administration may be misusing the probationary period, which is traditionally meant for performance evaluation, not broad workforce reductions.
The Trump administration has ordered at least six senior FBI leaders at the executive assistant director and special agent in charge levels to retire, resign, or be fired by Monday. This follows a broader purge that began at the Justice Department, targeting officials promoted by former FBI Director Christopher Wray.
These removals come amid concerns that Trump’s allies aim to reshape the FBI’s leadership, even though those being pushed out were not involved in the criminal prosecutions of Trump. Hundreds of FBI agents who investigated the January 6 attack and Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents fear they could also face retribution, similar to career Justice Department lawyers who have been pushed out.
The leadership overhaul aligns with Trump’s long-standing claims that the FBI has been "weaponized" against him. Trump’s nominee for FBI director, Kash Patel, faced questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee but denied any knowledge of plans to punish agents involved in Trump-related investigations. Patel has previously suggested in media appearances that he would seek retribution but assured lawmakers that no one would be terminated based on case assignments.
The FBI Agents Association has raised concerns with Patel, warning of growing unease within the bureau. Many agents, while conservative, were reluctant to be assigned to January 6 and Trump-related cases, and some Justice Department officials accused them of slow-walking investigations. FBI personnel involved in the Mar-a-Lago search have also faced threats after Trump supporters exposed their identities.
Further fueling anxiety, the FBI’s acting director, Paul Abbate, retired on Inauguration Day, and the Trump team swiftly replaced him with senior agents from New York and Newark. Former agent Tom Ferguson, an aide to Rep. Jim Jordan—one of the FBI’s harshest critics—has also been installed as a policy adviser at the bureau. These rapid changes underscore Trump’s influence over the FBI’s restructuring, signaling a shift in leadership and priorities.
A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from halting federal loans, grants, and financial aid to 22 states, preventing disruptions to government-funded services. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge John McConnell in response to a lawsuit from Democratic attorneys general, challenges a directive from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that sought to freeze funding while reviewing grants for alignment with Trump’s priorities.
The OMB memo, issued as part of Trump’s broader efforts to reshape the federal government, threatened over $1 trillion in state grants used for healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Critics argued that the policy violated the U.S. Constitution by overriding Congress’s power over federal spending, citing the 1974 Impoundment Control Act.
Although the White House formally withdrew the memo amid legal challenges, attorneys argued that the underlying policy remained in effect. A separate court in Washington, D.C., also issued a temporary stay on the funding freeze, with further hearings scheduled. The administration maintained that the freeze would not impact Social Security or Medicare but only programs covered by Trump’s executive orders.
The Trump administration has ordered employees at multiple federal agencies, including the CDC, Department of Transportation, and Department of Energy, to remove pronouns from their email signatures and other government communications. This directive follows executive orders signed by Trump on his first day in office to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within the federal government.
The policy, citing the need to eliminate DEI-related language in official communications, has sparked frustration among some career employees. Affected agencies received internal memos instructing them on how to edit their signatures, and the Office of Personnel Management has also directed agencies to disable features that prompt users for pronouns in email systems. While the extent of the policy’s reach across federal agencies remains unclear, it reflects the administration’s broader push to remove DEI programs from government operations.
President Trump issued a memorandum on limiting lame-duck collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The memorandum strongly opposes the use of agreements negotiated by outgoing administrations, arguing that such contracts undermine democratic governance and improperly constrain the authority of a new President. While the intent to prevent rushed agreements that could impose inefficient policies is understandable, the memorandum raises concerns about executive overreach, the disruption of established labor negotiations, and the potential politicization of federal employee rights.
One major issue with the memorandum is its broad characterization of late-stage CBAs as inherently harmful or undemocratic. While it is true that some outgoing administrations may attempt to extend their policies beyond their tenure, CBAs are legally binding agreements negotiated between federal agencies and employee unions, often after extensive discussions. By categorically rejecting any agreements made within 30 days of a transition, the administration risks invalidating legitimate agreements that may have been negotiated in good faith. Furthermore, the memorandum does not provide clear criteria for determining whether a particular agreement is wasteful or simply a continuation of standard labor-management practices.
Another concern is the discretionary power given to agency heads to disapprove CBAs that have not yet been finalized. While this ensures that unapproved agreements do not automatically bind a new administration, it also places significant authority in political appointees' hands, who may selectively use this power. This could create an environment where CBAs are evaluated based on political considerations rather than merit, potentially undermining stability in federal labor relations. Additionally, the exemption for law enforcement CBAs raises questions about fairness and consistency, suggesting that certain groups of employees are being granted special treatment without a clear justification.
The memorandum also attempts to protect itself from legal challenges by asserting that it does not create enforceable rights or benefits. However, this does not eliminate the likelihood of legal disputes, particularly if federal employee unions challenge the directive as an overreach of executive power. Since CBAs are protected under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, any attempt to broadly nullify them could lead to legal pushback from unions and employees affected by the policy.
In conclusion, while the memorandum seeks to prevent outgoing administrations from imposing unwanted policies on their successors, it does so in a way that risks disrupting labor negotiations, politicizing federal employment policies, and inviting legal challenges. A more balanced approach might involve a case-by-case review rather than an outright prohibition of all CBAs negotiated within the transition period. Without such nuance, the policy may cause more administrative and legal complications than it resolves.
President Trump’s new Executive Order on deregulation, which mandates eliminating at least 10 existing regulations for every new one introduced, presents a sweeping and arguably arbitrary approach to regulatory reform. While the administration frames this as necessary to combat inflation and economic stagnation, the policy’s rigid numerical requirement prioritizes deregulation for its own sake rather than a thoughtful evaluation of which regulations genuinely hinder economic growth. Without a case-by-case assessment of their necessity or impact, the blanket repeal of regulations risks removing essential protections for consumers, workers, and the environment. Furthermore, the mandate that total regulatory costs in fiscal year 2025 must be “significantly less than zero” oversimplifies regulations' complex role in stabilizing markets, ensuring public safety, and fostering long-term economic sustainability.
The executive order also appears to be a politically charged response to the Biden administration, which Trump accuses of imposing an excessive $1.7 trillion in regulatory costs. However, this critique ignores that many of these regulations were implemented to address pressing issues such as climate change, financial stability, and consumer protection. The claim that deregulation automatically spurs innovation and economic prosperity overlooks the role of smart, targeted regulations in preventing corporate overreach, ensuring fair competition, and maintaining essential public services. Additionally, while Trump highlights the success of his first administration’s “2-for-1” deregulation policy—boasting a 5.5-to-1 repeal ratio—the long-term consequences of these actions remain debatable, particularly in sectors where deregulation has led to weakened oversight and increased risks, such as environmental protections and financial regulations.
Ultimately, the order’s broad, one-size-fits-all approach raises concerns about the administration’s priorities. Rather than evaluating the effectiveness of existing regulations, this policy seeks to fulfill an arbitrary numerical goal that does not account for the real-world impact of regulatory frameworks. While excessive and outdated regulations should be reviewed and reformed, an indiscriminate purge risks undermining public safety, economic stability, and essential protections in favor of short-term political gains.
President Trump’s 2025 proclamation recognizing National Black History Month acknowledges the contributions of Black Americans to the nation’s history. However, while the proclamation attempts to celebrate Black excellence, it falls short in several key areas, including historical framing, inclusivity, and substantive commitment to racial equity. Rather than providing a broad and balanced representation of Black historical figures, the proclamation selectively highlights individuals who align with conservative ideologies, such as Justice Clarence Thomas and economist Thomas Sowell, while omitting major civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. This narrow curation of Black achievements risks reducing the depth and diversity of Black contributions to American progress.
A particularly perplexing choice is the inclusion of Tiger Woods alongside historical and political figures. While Woods is an accomplished athlete, his presence in a statement about Black history seems misplaced compared to the countless Black leaders in activism, politics, and the arts who have shaped national discourse. The emphasis on a sports figure over more politically significant figures underscores a pattern in which Black success is too often framed through the lens of entertainment and athletics rather than civic and social leadership.
Furthermore, the proclamation takes on an overly self-congratulatory tone, positioning Black achievements as a stepping stone toward what Trump calls a "historic Golden Age" under his administration. This framing risks co-opting Black excellence to serve a political narrative rather than genuinely honoring Black Americans’ perseverance and contributions on their own terms. Additionally, the statement notably lacks any acknowledgment of the systemic barriers Black Americans have historically faced and continue to encounter, such as racial discrimination, economic disparity, and voter suppression. A proclamation meant to honor Black history should also recognize the ongoing struggles for racial justice rather than presenting a triumphalist narrative that implies these issues have already been resolved.
The proclamation's call to action is also disappointingly superficial. While it encourages Americans to observe Black History Month through “appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities,” it does not outline any federal initiatives or policy commitments to improve conditions for Black communities. Without meaningful policy backing, the proclamation risks being a symbolic gesture rather than a substantive effort to uplift and support Black Americans.
The Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has paused all special event programs related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives following an executive order by President Donald Trump banning such initiatives. The affected events include observances for Juneteenth, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Black History Month, Holocaust Days of Remembrance, Pride Month, and other cultural heritage celebrations. While MLK Day and Juneteenth will remain federal holidays, all related programming and agency-sponsored activities are suspended.
The memo, dated January 28, 2025, also halts Agency Resource Groups, Affinity Groups, and Employee Networking Groups until further notice. Trump has issued multiple executive orders targeting DEI, with the White House arguing that such initiatives foster division and hostility. The DIA stated that it is working with the Department of Defense to implement these orders and will provide updates as further guidance is received. The pause comes ahead of Black History Month, which begins on February 1.
Down with meat inspections! Down with dairy herd inspection for tuberculosis, bird flu, etc. Up with salmonella! Up with listeria! They’re All Natural.
Shopping for eggs in the UK, silly me, I looked in the refrigerated section. The eggs are not refrigerated and don’t need to be because the standards for cleanliness are higher. The Brits reject American chlorinated chicken, as well.
"...eliminating at least 10 existing regulations for every new one introduced..." I'd love to see the discussion around this one, "So, five?" "No. I say fifteen." "OK, we'll compromise, ten." "Sounds good."