What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
May 19, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump’s latest Truth Social posts reflect a mix of baseless accusations, culture war theatrics, and a highly irregular assertion of unilateral foreign policy authority. In the first two posts, Trump accuses former Vice President Kamala Harris of making illegal campaign contributions by allegedly paying celebrities like Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé, Oprah, and Bono for endorsements disguised as entertainment. These claims are unsubstantiated and legally questionable. The Federal Election Commission allows for the hiring of performers in campaigns as long as payments are disclosed and represent fair market value. Trump offers no evidence to support his insinuation that these celebrities were covertly paid for political endorsements, and his inflammatory tone serves more to stir outrage than present facts. His claim that Beyoncé was booed after endorsing Harris without performing “a single song” appears to be entirely fictional, and his framing of these entertainers as “unpatriotic” is another instance of his pattern of targeting liberal public figures, especially Black celebrities, with exaggerated and conspiratorial accusations.
In the third post, Trump abruptly shifts from domestic political attacks to a self-congratulatory announcement about a ceasefire process between Russia and Ukraine. He claims to have held a successful two-hour call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, during which both parties agreed to begin negotiations to end the war. Trump presents this as a personal diplomatic achievement, asserting that he also contacted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and several European leaders immediately afterward to inform them of the outcome. This post is diplomatically irregular and constitutionally troubling. While the president holds foreign policy powers, Trump’s framing suggests a solo maneuver that bypasses standard State Department channels, NATO coordination, and any consultation with Congress. His tone is one of self-importance rather than statesmanship, and he praises Russia’s postwar economic potential without addressing its responsibility for launching the war or committing war crimes. His emphasis on future trade with Russia and Ukraine also ignores the ongoing human suffering and the complex realities of peace negotiations, which cannot be resolved through a single phone call.
Taken together, these posts exemplify Trump’s ongoing use of social media to blur the line between governance and spectacle. They rely heavily on misinformation, personal glorification, and inflammatory rhetoric aimed at enemies both foreign and domestic. Rather than offering clear policy, legal reasoning, or coherent diplomacy, Trump continues to position himself as the central actor in a chaotic narrative of grievance, conspiracy, and self-declared triumph.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt held a briefing that functioned more as a political performance than a standard government communication. Throughout the event, she employed overtly partisan language, repeatedly referring to legislation as the “One Big Beautiful Bill” and using culture war rhetoric such as “transgender insanity” and “illegal alien invaders.” These choices undermined the credibility and neutrality expected of a White House press secretary and suggested the administration had transformed a key institutional function into a vehicle for campaign messaging. The tone of the briefing echoed the president’s own rhetorical style, favoring emotional appeal over factual clarity.
Leavitt made sweeping claims about tax cuts, economic growth, and legislative impacts without offering detailed sourcing or independent validation. She stated, for example, that families would see up to $13,000 more in take-home pay and that the legislation would save $1.6 trillion—claims that lacked transparent accounting or connection to a public CBO score or external analysis. Despite the bill’s enormous proposed expenditures—massive tax cuts, border wall expansion, bonuses for law enforcement, and a new military dome—she insisted it would reduce the deficit, a contradiction she never addressed substantively. The presentation of economic policy relied heavily on unsupported optimism and campaign slogans rather than rigorous explanation.
Legal and constitutional issues were addressed in a similarly cavalier manner. Leavitt framed proposed Medicaid restrictions—such as removing coverage for transgender youth and undocumented immigrants—as “common sense reforms” and ignored their serious ethical, medical, and legal implications. Perhaps most disturbing was her acknowledgment, without condemnation or elaboration, that the administration was considering suspending habeas corpus. She offered no further comment, as though the proposal to override one of the nation’s most fundamental legal protections were a routine policy option.
On foreign affairs, Leavitt exaggerated the administration’s role in global diplomacy, describing the Middle East trip as “historic” and quoting unnamed foreign officials to portray the world as rejoicing in Trump’s return to power. She falsely claimed that President Trump had “inherited” the war in Ukraine and blamed the prior administration for global instability, a misleading narrative presented without challenge. Her anecdotal praise for Trump’s diplomacy replaced measurable outcomes with unverified emotional claims.
The briefing also flirted openly with conspiracy theories. A journalist’s question invoking the “Clinton body count” and Epstein’s alleged intelligence ties was met with neither skepticism nor repudiation. While Leavitt technically deferred to the Department of Justice, she failed to distance the administration from these baseless accusations, effectively normalizing conspiracy content in an official setting. This pattern of validation-through-silence allowed disinformation to circulate unchecked within the White House press room.
Transparency and accountability were consistently absent. Leavitt repeatedly deflected questions about healthcare screenings, aircraft donations, and program implementation timelines, often saying she would “check” or “defer” rather than answer. Despite portraying the administration as engaged and proactive, she failed to offer evidence of deliberation or disclosure on key matters. Even a basic question about whether President Trump had called President Biden following his cancer diagnosis was answered vaguely, suggesting a performative empathy disconnected from meaningful action.
Leavitt closed the briefing with more exaggerated praise, claiming the administration’s foreign policy shift had “turned on the lights in a dark room” globally. This metaphor, like much of the briefing, reflected a reliance on spectacle over substance. The event served not to inform the press or public, but to advance a partisan narrative, promote legislation using emotional appeal, and obscure legal and fiscal realities beneath a layer of populist sloganeering. The result was not a briefing in the traditional sense, but a display of political branding, more concerned with loyalty and optics than transparency or governance.
Donald and Melania Trump gave remarks at a bill signing ceremony for the “Take It Down Act,” aimed at marking a significant step forward in combating non-consensual image abuse and AI-generated deepfake exploitation. While the event had the potential to be a landmark moment for digital rights and child protection policy, its execution suffered from several major flaws, primarily due to Trump’s disorganized and frequently inappropriate remarks. Melania Trump delivered a focused and dignified speech, highlighting the psychological harm caused by online abuse, especially among children and young adults. She framed the “Take It Down Act” as a bipartisan achievement rooted in compassion and accountability, crediting survivors and advocates for bringing attention to the issue. Her emphasis on kindness, well-being, and safer digital environments aligned with her previous initiatives and struck an appropriate tone for the occasion.
In contrast, Donald Trump’s portion of the event frequently veered off-topic, diluting the seriousness of the legislation. He opened his remarks with a reference to a recent phone call with Vladimir Putin and European leaders about war casualties, an abrupt and confusing shift that distracted from the issue at hand. Throughout his speech, Trump interwove unrelated anecdotes, including jokes about Putin liking Melania more than him, flippant references to foster care funding, and complaints about deepfakes of himself. While some moments attempted to humanize the legislation, such as recognizing young victims in the audience, his tone oscillated between boastful and dismissive, undermining the gravity of the abuse being addressed. Comments like “Don’t worry, you’ll survive” when referring to his own experiences with manipulated images came across as insensitive, given the trauma faced by actual victims.
Additionally, Trump’s delivery lacked structure and often repeated points, such as the bipartisan nature of the vote, without adding depth or clarity. His failure to read the names of attending senators, followed by awkward jokes about it, conveyed a lack of preparation and distracted from the celebratory intent of the bill’s passage. Moreover, Trump referenced constitutional concerns—mentioning the First and Second Amendments—without explaining how the new law navigated legal scrutiny, a missed opportunity to reassure civil liberties advocates.
Despite these shortcomings, the bill itself is a notable legislative achievement. It criminalizes the distribution of explicit or AI-manipulated images without consent and imposes prison sentences for violators, offering legal recourse for victims who have long lacked protection. Melania Trump’s advocacy helped bring needed visibility to the issue, and bipartisan support—99 senators and 408 members of Congress—reflects the urgency and consensus surrounding online abuse. However, Donald Trump’s rhetorical indiscipline and offhand humor detracted from the law’s significance. What could have been a unified and somber moment of national resolve was muddled by an unfocused and self-referential performance that undermined the moral clarity of the cause.
An Oval Office event, which was intended to honor fallen law enforcement officers with the first-ever Medals of Sacrifice, was undermined by a lack of structure, meandering delivery, and frequent diversions into unrelated topics. While the initiative to formally recognize first responders who die in the line of duty is both noble and long overdue, the presentation veered far from the dignity and focus such a solemn occasion demands. Trump began by acknowledging the officers and their families, but quickly digressed into anecdotes about attending the funeral, praising Tiffany & Co. for designing the medal, and detailing the family connections of luxury jeweler Alexandre Arnault. Instead of maintaining the spotlight on the officers’ heroism, Trump repeatedly shifted attention to himself—his decision-making, his past actions, and even his recent cognitive test results.
What should have been a unifying moment of grief and national gratitude instead became an erratic mix of personal storytelling, product endorsement, and campaign-style rhetoric. The inclusion of a foreign policy Q&A session, focused largely on Trump’s call with Vladimir Putin and the ongoing war in Ukraine, further derailed the event. His commentary, filled with familiar themes about how the war "would have never happened" under his administration, was incongruous with the intended purpose of honoring fallen domestic heroes. His framing of Ukraine as “not our war,” and his repeated emphasis on financial losses and trade profits, struck a jarring note amid a memorial for public servants killed while protecting their communities.
The speech was filled with repetition, grammatical confusion, and improvised phrasing that often bordered on inappropriate. Phrases like “they're part of the Oval Office now” or the awkward suggestion that the fourth medal should hopefully “never be given out” showed a lack of emotional precision. Even during the moments when family members and officers spoke, Trump interrupted or redirected attention, diluting the impact of their heartfelt remarks. While Congressman Brian Mast and others made brief but focused comments about the significance of the medal, their contributions were overshadowed by the president's disjointed narrative.
The event was poorly managed from a rhetorical standpoint. Trump’s tendency to dominate the spotlight, combined with his conversational style and lack of thematic discipline, transformed what could have been a powerful and healing tribute into an uneven, self-referential performance. The Medal of Sacrifice initiative deserves genuine respect, but its launch was clouded by an event that failed to rise to the solemnity of the occasion.
Donald Trump’s remarks at the Kennedy Center Board Dinner were a disjointed, campaign-style monologue that blurred the lines between cultural leadership and partisan grandstanding. The speech lacked structure and coherence, with Trump jumping erratically between topics such as Vladimir Putin, U.S. military enlistment, sound design, tariffs, and his personal real estate projects. Rather than delivering a focused address on the future of the Kennedy Center, he turned the evening into a stream-of-consciousness performance more suited to a rally than a formal institutional gathering.
Much of the speech was inappropriate for the setting. Trump made crude remarks, including a vulgar reference to “shoving it up their ass,” and mocked marginalized groups by disparaging past Kennedy Center programming for “quote-unquote queer and trans youth” and “lesbian-only Shakespeare.” These comments, combined with his dismissal of DEI efforts and references to “Marxist” performances, portrayed the arts as ideological enemies rather than vital components of a diverse and free society. Such framing threatens the Kennedy Center’s integrity as a national cultural institution committed to artistic inclusion and freedom.
The address was also filled with factually dubious claims. Trump exaggerated economic achievements, boasting of trillions of dollars in trade victories and falsely stating that inflation, grocery, and gas prices had dropped significantly under his watch. He took credit for revitalizing the military and Space Force, often without evidence or proper context, and claimed that his administration had balanced the Kennedy Center’s budget for 2026 in just 12 weeks, offering no explanation for such a dramatic financial turnaround.
Trump’s treatment of cultural stewardship was shallow and self-serving. Rather than highlighting artistic excellence or institutional plans for future programming, he repeatedly redirected attention to his own accomplishments, including his negotiations with foreign leaders, past construction successes, and 2020 election grievances. He used the Kennedy Center’s stage to air political resentments, framing its previous leadership as corrupt and partisan while positioning himself as the institution’s savior.
In a particularly tone-deaf moment, Trump recounted Howard Lutnick’s tragic 9/11 survival story with inappropriate asides about “insider trading” and jokes about Lutnick’s wife being “very tough.” What should have been a solemn and respectful tribute was marred by awkward storytelling and a lack of decorum.
Finally, Trump politicized the role of the arts in American life. He claimed that the Kennedy Center had been run into the ground by Democrats and was now being “saved” under his leadership. This kind of rhetoric turns a nonpartisan cultural institution into an ideological battleground, undermining its independence and mission. Instead of promoting the Kennedy Center as a space for national unity through the arts, Trump treated it as a backdrop for personal vindication and political theater. In doing so, he diminished the seriousness of the event and cast doubt on the future of cultural stewardship under his administration.
The Trump administration’s decision to pay nearly $5 million to Ashli Babbitt’s family to settle a wrongful death lawsuit is legally troubling and politically incendiary. It reframes a lawful use of force during a violent insurrection as state misconduct, despite multiple investigations, including an internal review by the U.S. Capitol Police, finding that Lt. Michael Byrd acted appropriately to protect lawmakers during the January 6 breach. By settling the case, the administration effectively legitimized the false narrative that Babbitt was an innocent victim rather than a willing participant in an attempted coup. This action not only undermines accountability for political violence but also risks emboldening future extremists who may now view violent protest as both righteous and potentially lucrative.
The settlement politicizes justice and misuses taxpayer money. The original lawsuit, filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of Babbitt’s estate, was defended by the Justice Department under President Biden, which maintained that Byrd’s use of force was justified. The Trump administration’s reversal and settlement contradict that defense and suggest a calculated political gesture to appease the president’s base. Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger publicly expressed his disappointment with the decision, and Officer Dan Hodges sharply criticized it, accusing Trump of paying off insurrectionists to have them “on retainer” for future unrest. Such remarks from within law enforcement illustrate a profound disapproval of how the administration is rewriting the events of January 6.
Additionally, the portrayal of Babbitt as a peaceful protester is a distortion of the facts. Video evidence shows her trying to climb through a broken window into a secured area while members of Congress were being evacuated. While she may have been unarmed, her actions were clearly part of a violent mob’s effort to disrupt the democratic process. Elevating her as a martyr not only ignores the context of her behavior but actively fuels revisionist history. This, combined with Trump’s blanket pardon of over 1,500 Capitol riot defendants and the firing of prosecutors who handled those cases, reflects a broader effort to erode the rule of law and institutional legitimacy in favor of political loyalty.
A federal judge in Texas ordered the Trump administration to reestablish communication between a Venezuelan refugee deported to El Salvador and his legal counsel, marking the first such directive involving deportations under President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act. The plaintiff, Widmer Josneyder Agelviz Sanguino, was sent to the notorious CECOT supermax prison, where inmates are typically denied contact with the outside world. Judge Keith P. Ellison mandated the government to confirm Agelviz’s location within 24 hours and restore attorney access within 48 hours.
Agelviz had arrived in the U.S. under the refugee resettlement program, a process involving extensive security vetting. Despite having no criminal record, he was detained due to a tattoo allegedly linked to a Venezuelan gang — an association his mother and legal team contest as baseless and symbolic of personal, not criminal, meaning. Just before his immigration hearing, he and other Venezuelan men were abruptly deported to El Salvador without due process, raising constitutional concerns.
Lawyers argue these deportations violate the men’s rights, especially given that most had clean records and entered legally, often through CBP One or refugee channels. The Biden administration had previously been ordered to facilitate returns of individuals deported to El Salvador, but had never before been ordered to ensure legal communication for detainees.
The Trump administration defended its actions by invoking national security and gang threats, citing Tren de Aragua's violence, but provided no concrete evidence linking Agelviz or others to criminal activity. Family members, meanwhile, remain in the dark about their loved ones’ welfare, with no contact in over two months. Video footage from a rare congressional visit to CECOT showed detainees signaling for help, amplifying concerns over mistreatment and legal violations.
A federal judge blocked the Trump administration from dismantling the U.S. Institute of Peace, ruling that its takeover by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency was unlawful. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell found that the administration had bypassed legal and congressional procedures, using force and firing the institute’s board and staff without proper authority. The Institute, a congressionally established nonprofit dedicated to global conflict resolution, had operated independently for 40 years.
Judge Howell criticized the Trump administration for undermining congressional intent and constitutional limits, declaring all actions taken by DOGE—including staff firings and asset transfers—null and void. She emphasized that the President lacks unilateral authority to remove board members of such an organization.
Despite the White House defending the move as cost-cutting, the ruling marked a legal setback, though the administration has 30 days to appeal. Employees, some of whom had worked in conflict zones globally, expressed cautious optimism, calling the ruling a first step toward reinstating the organization’s mission.
A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration must restore $176 million in federal grants that had been awarded to 13 nonprofits and six municipalities for environmental and climate-related programs. The funds, originally distributed under the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and other programs, were frozen or canceled by executive orders under the Trump administration. The lawsuit, filed by the Southern Environmental Law Center and the Public Rights Project, argued that the funding freeze was an unlawful overreach by the executive branch and violated the First Amendment.
Judge Richard Gergel, presiding in South Carolina, agreed with the plaintiffs and said he would issue a final order requiring the administration to restore the 32 affected grants tied to the IRA and IIJA. Although the Trump administration conceded on most of the grants, it signaled plans to appeal the ruling on jurisdictional grounds. Other grants, particularly from a USDA climate-smart commodities program, remain in dispute after being canceled in April.
The ruling was hailed as a significant legal victory that reaffirms congressional control over federal funding. Several agencies involved in the lawsuit, including the EPA and USDA, declined to comment.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to revoke Temporary Protected Status for roughly 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants, reversing an earlier extension granted by President Biden through 2026. The Court issued a brief, unsigned order lifting a prior stay by a federal judge in California, enabling the Department of Homeland Security to begin immediate deportation proceedings against those affected.
Critics, including immigrant advocates and civil rights attorneys, condemned the decision as unprecedented and lacking justification. Plaintiffs argue the move reflects illegal, discriminatory animus and have vowed to continue fighting in federal courts and the public sphere. Ongoing litigation in the Ninth Circuit and district courts will proceed, but in the meantime, the TPS protections are effectively voided.
Venezuelans like Gustavo Doe, who rely on TPS for legal residency and medical care, now face the risk of deportation. Doe, a political refugee and accident victim, fears returning to a collapsed healthcare system in Venezuela and is seeking asylum as a safeguard.
The ruling also raises concerns for similar TPS-related lawsuits involving Haitian immigrants in Massachusetts, suggesting the Supreme Court may similarly allow the administration to act while legal challenges remain unresolved. Key hearings are scheduled for May 29 (California) and July 11 (appeals court), while motions in the Massachusetts case are still being briefed.