What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
May 7, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump issued an early morning post on Truth Social in yet another textbook example of grievance-driven, conspiratorial rhetoric designed to delegitimize the press and stoke distrust in democratic institutions. He opens by accusing CBS and 60 Minutes of “unlawfully” manipulating and editing an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris to make her appear coherent. Yet, he offers no evidence to substantiate such a serious allegation. He further claims that the full transcript was withheld until after his inauguration and only released under orders from the Federal Communications Commission, a dubious assertion given that the FCC lacks the authority to compel media organizations to publish interview transcripts. Trump compounds these claims by alleging that the interview was not only fake and corrupt but also part of a larger propaganda effort against him, culminating in the absurd suggestion that it was submitted for an Emmy Award “for an illegally falsified interview.” This overreach typifies his tendency to collapse journalistic recognition into accusations of political bias and criminal misconduct.
Throughout the post, Trump leans heavily on emotionally charged language—calling the segment a “Fake News Puff Piece,” the Emmys “totally discredited,” and the nomination a “slap in the face” to believers in “TRUTH and Honest Journalism.” These exaggerated phrases are not designed to inform but to provoke. He blends unrelated issues like early voting, media credibility, and entertainment industry awards into a single accusatory narrative, which serves to overwhelm readers with a sense of institutional betrayal rather than present a coherent argument. His claim that CBS and its parent companies should be “held responsible…in Court” adds a veneer of legal legitimacy that is not supported by fact or process, further muddying the line between political messaging and legal action. Ultimately, the post reflects Trump’s ongoing strategy: delegitimize any institution that does not serve his political narrative, deflect scrutiny by accusing others of the very behaviors he’s been accused of, and incite loyal outrage rather than informed debate.
Donald Trump participated in the swearing-in of David Perdue as U.S. Ambassador to China. His remarks at the event were a sprawling mix of ceremonial, political, and policy-oriented commentary that often lacked focus and coherence. While the event was meant to highlight the appointment of a key diplomatic figure, Trump used the occasion to announce a new “Victory Day” commemorating America’s role in World War II, deliver campaign-style attacks on the Biden administration, and engage in an unscripted press conference that veered across global and domestic topics.
The proclamation of a national Victory Day for World War II was framed with a heavily nationalistic tone, portraying the U.S. as the singular force responsible for the Allied victory. Trump minimized the contributions of other nations, including Russia, the U.K., and other key players, reducing a complex global war to a triumph of American will. While it is true that U.S. industrial and military power was decisive, his framing leaned toward historical revisionism. The announcement appeared abrupt and performative, lacking historical consultation or broader consensus, and seemed more like an assertion of national pride for political gain than a carefully considered act of commemoration.
When turning to the appointment of David Perdue, Trump offered warm personal praise, emphasizing their friendship and Perdue’s background in business and politics. However, he provided little justification for Perdue’s selection based on diplomatic qualifications. The appointment appeared to be framed more around loyalty than expertise. Trump’s tone at times became overly casual, even joking about Perdue’s family, which undermined the seriousness of the role. Given the sensitivity and strategic complexity of U.S.–China relations, the lack of emphasis on diplomatic experience was conspicuous.
During the Q&A session, Trump touched on a wide array of issues—from tariffs on baby items to fentanyl trafficking, the Iran nuclear question, the India–Pakistan conflict, and the Israel–Hamas war—often without providing concrete answers or detailed policy positions. His responses were frequently vague or deferred to other departments. Several times, he admitted to not knowing the answer or stated that he would “take a look.” His foreign policy framing relied heavily on contrasting his administration’s actions with those of President Biden, blaming Biden for wars, inflation, border issues, and even the October 7 attacks. These assertions, while politically charged, often lacked evidence or a nuanced understanding of the global circumstances.
Trump’s delivery, while consistent with his improvisational style, lacked the formality typically associated with high-level diplomatic appointments. The blend of personal anecdotes, partisan attacks, historical revisionism, and off-the-cuff foreign policy pronouncements created a sense of chaos rather than ceremony. The occasion, which should have been a focused and dignified moment recognizing a key ambassadorial appointment, instead served as a stage for Trump’s broader political messaging and self-congratulatory narrative.
The event exemplified Trump’s tendency to blur official government functions with campaign-style rhetoric. While it provided a platform to highlight his administration’s foreign policy views, it ultimately fell short of projecting diplomatic seriousness. The excessive self-praise, lack of policy depth, and informal tone detracted from the significance of the ambassadorial role and signaled a continuation of Trump’s personality-driven approach to both governance and international relations.
Vice President JD Vance’s remarks at the Munich Leaders Conference aimed to strike a balance between realism, transatlantic continuity, and the Trump administration’s hallmark transactional approach to foreign policy. However, the speech was undercut by an uneven tone, muddled messaging, and a lack of strategic clarity. Vance opened with casual banter—“What a crowd” and “I hope not”—in response to being called the highlight of the event. This informality may have been meant to disarm, but it ultimately set an unserious tone for what was intended as a high-level dialogue on global security. His language throughout the address frequently veered into colloquialisms and redundancy, weakening the impact of his more substantive points. Phrases like “we’re on the same civilization team” and “move on from the obsession with the 30-day ceasefire” undercut the gravitas expected in such a setting.
On Ukraine, Vance attempted to frame the Trump administration’s position as a form of “strategic realism,” emphasizing the need to understand Russian grievances in order to bring the war to a close. While he acknowledged the moral and strategic flaws in Russia’s invasion, he repeatedly stressed the need to “understand where the other side is coming from.” This posture, while presented as pragmatic, bordered on appeasement and did little to reaffirm the principle of Ukrainian sovereignty or collective European security. Vance failed to clearly articulate what concessions the administration believes are appropriate or how U.S. support for Ukraine aligns with long-term deterrence. His remarks seemed to equate the culpability of both sides and offered only a vague hope that “cool heads” would prevail, without a clear plan for driving negotiations forward.
In discussing NATO, Vance reiterated the administration’s desire for European allies to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP—more than double the longstanding 2% benchmark. This demand, presented without consideration for domestic political or economic constraints, came across as unrealistic and heavy-handed. Vance’s framing of Europe’s economic “dematerialization” and lack of industrial readiness was condescending and ignored the complex realities of post-Cold War military planning. His emphasis was more on financial burden-sharing than on fostering strategic cohesion or modernization within the alliance. There was little to no acknowledgment of NATO’s broader purpose or recent initiatives, and the address lacked any vision for adapting the alliance to new challenges like cyber warfare, energy security, or gray-zone conflicts.
On China, Vance’s remarks were a mix of incoherent protectionism and vague openness. He criticized the U.S. trade imbalance and accused China of suppressing domestic consumption to flood global markets with exports, but he failed to articulate a credible policy path. His vision for U.S.–EU trade relations was similarly narrow, focusing heavily on market access for American goods and perceived European protectionism. While Vance expressed interest in a more “synergistic” partnership, he framed the transatlantic economic relationship largely in terms of what Europe owed to the U.S., not what a coordinated strategic trade policy might look like. This one-sided framing will likely be perceived in Brussels as further evidence of the administration’s disinterest in meaningful multilateralism.
In contrast, Vance’s comments on Iran were among the most coherent and substantive of the session. He criticized the JCPOA for its weak inspections regime and loopholes that he claimed left Iran on a “wide path” to a nuclear weapon. He laid out a binary framework—either Iran abandons enrichment entirely or faces isolation—arguing that proliferation risk, not just Iranian behavior, drives the administration’s opposition. His commitment to nonproliferation was clearly stated, and the broader implications for regional arms races were well-articulated. This section stood out for its clarity and sense of direction, in contrast to the vagueness surrounding Ukraine and China.
Vance closed with a return to his earlier controversial themes about free speech and political legitimacy, cautioning against governments, particularly in Europe and the U.S., drawing lines around acceptable discourse that might undermine public trust. While likely intended as a transatlantic warning about overreach, this pivot back to domestic cultural grievances felt out of place in a security dialogue. It blurred the line between national ideological talking points and shared strategic interests, leaving the impression that U.S. foreign policy is increasingly beholden to internal political messaging rather than a coherent global vision.
Vance’s remarks embodied the Trump administration’s foreign policy approach: rhetorically transactional, inconsistently realist, and increasingly driven by domestic political imperatives. While he demonstrated moments of clarity, particularly on Iran, his overall presentation lacked cohesion, diplomatic polish, and reassurance. For a European audience that continues to rely on American leadership in an increasingly volatile world, Vance’s performance raised more doubts than confidence about the reliability, seriousness, and strategic direction of the United States.
The Trump administration has invoked the state secrets privilege to prevent disclosure of information related to the allegedly unlawful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national. The move came in response to a request from U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, who is conducting a detailed inquiry into the circumstances of Abrego Garcia’s removal from the U.S. Xinis disclosed the assertion in a court order issued Wednesday, calling for a comprehensive legal briefing from the administration on the use of the privilege and its potential impact on her investigation.
This is the second recent instance in which the Trump administration has used the state secrets privilege to obstruct judicial review of deportations carried out under controversial or potentially illegal circumstances. The prior case involved U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who demanded information about the timing and execution of deportation flights to El Salvador. These flights were conducted under a rarely invoked presidential wartime authority—a legal justification that has raised alarms among civil rights advocates and judges alike.
The state secrets privilege is a legal doctrine that allows the government to withhold information in legal proceedings if disclosing it would harm national security. It is rarely used and often contested because it can effectively end litigation by denying plaintiffs access to evidence. In this instance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and Attorney General Pam Bondi all endorsed the privilege assertion in March as part of a broader legal strategy to shield Trump-era immigration policies from court scrutiny.
Judge Boasberg has not yet ruled on whether the privilege assertion is valid but has indicated skepticism, noting that courts routinely examine classified materials in secure, closed settings. His concern reflects a broader judicial unease about allowing the executive branch to avoid accountability by invoking national security without meaningful oversight.
In Maryland, Judge Xinis—appointed by President Obama—is pressing forward with her inquiry into Abrego Garcia’s case. She has demanded a full legal rationale for the privilege by Monday and has scheduled a hearing for next week. Meanwhile, attorneys representing Abrego Garcia have begun deposing Trump administration officials to uncover how and why the deportation was carried out, particularly if it violated court orders or legal norms governing due process and asylum rights.
The case highlights the Trump administration’s continued reliance on expedited removal procedures and executive authority, and raises ongoing questions about transparency, accountability, and the limits of presidential power in immigration enforcement.
Donald Trump has nominated Dr. Casey Means, a wellness influencer with ties to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as his new pick for U.S. Surgeon General, following the withdrawal of his previous nominee, Dr. Janette Nesheiwat. Means, who has no government experience and left a surgical residency disillusioned with conventional medicine, is known for promoting lifestyle-based health interventions and sponsoring dietary supplements through social media. She co-founded a health tracking company and has defended Trump administration health policies in media appearances. Critics point to her lack of clinical credentials and the administration's broader pattern of undermining established public health measures like vaccination and water fluoridation. Trump’s prior nominee, Nesheiwat, was dropped after facing scrutiny over her vaccine stance and questions about her credentials.
The Trump administration faced legal and diplomatic backlash after U.S. authorities allegedly told detained migrants, including individuals from Vietnam, Laos, and the Philippines, that they would be deported to Libya, a country with a well-documented history of human rights abuses. The deportation plans involved flying migrants on a military aircraft, according to anonymous U.S. officials. Immigration attorneys said clients were coerced into signing documents consenting to removal to Libya, sometimes through intimidation and solitary confinement.
U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy, who is overseeing a lawsuit challenging the administration’s third-country deportation practices, ruled that migrants must have a “meaningful opportunity” to contest removal to a country where they are not citizens and may face danger. He declared any imminent deportations to Libya would violate his court’s previous order and demanded further information from the government.
This controversy comes amid broader Trump administration efforts to deport migrants to third countries, such as Venezuela, being sent to a prison in El Salvador, or non-citizens being deported to Panama and Costa Rica. These practices have raised serious due process and human rights concerns.
The Libyan government in Tripoli denied any agreement to accept migrants from the U.S., while rival authorities in eastern Libya under Khalifa Hifter also disavowed any such deal, stating they would not accept migrants under any circumstances.
Human rights organizations and U.N. investigators have extensively documented crimes against humanity in Libya’s migrant detention system, including murder, rape, torture, enslavement, and extortion—making deportation there especially controversial and potentially unlawful under international law.