What Did Donald Trump Do Today?
June 18, 2025 Recap
Donald Trump gave remarks during the installation of two new flagpoles at the White House, quickly devolving into a chaotic, meandering monologue that demonstrated both rhetorical incoherence and alarming policy confusion. What began as an attempt to discuss a ceremonial flag-raising devolved into an unfocused, grievance-filled rant that veered wildly between personal boasts, insults, conspiracy theories, and geopolitical threats—all without meaningful structure or clarity. The president’s inability to stay on topic was not just a stylistic issue but a substantive one, particularly as he vacillated between praising construction equipment and accusing the Federal Reserve Chair of being “a stupid person” responsible for costing “trillions” due to high interest rates.
The unfiltered attacks on Jerome Powell—complete with personal name-calling (“too late Powell”)—were especially jarring. Trump attempted to cast his monetary policy musings as self-evident economic genius, blaming high interest payments on what he framed as deliberate political sabotage. His suggestion that he might appoint himself to the Fed was either unserious or profoundly unserious—neither being acceptable for a head of state. Additionally, his misunderstanding of inflation, debt structuring, and Fed independence was not merely rhetorical theater; it reflected a dangerous oversimplification of economic policy that contradicted both current economic data and the role of the Federal Reserve.
Internationally, Trump offered no coherent strategy on Iran, instead relishing in vague threats and contradictory statements. He implied the U.S. may or may not strike nuclear sites, only to pivot into an anecdote about tariffs and then attack CNN. His flippant language toward war—mocking journalists for asking if he would bomb Iran—is not just undiplomatic but chillingly cavalier, especially while U.S. allies watch closely for signs of escalation. His claim that “we totally captured the air” over Iran is militarily nonsensical and offers more bluster than substance.
Domestically, Trump’s immigration remarks reverted to recycled talking points: vilifying immigrants, glorifying worksite raids, and alleging Democrats emptied foreign prisons into the U.S. His so-called “Trump Card” immigration program—a paid fast-track for wealthy or highly skilled individuals—was presented without any legal or logistical explanation, underscoring his transactional view of citizenship. His swipe at Harvard and higher education more broadly, tying it to supposed endowments and funding cuts, further revealed a vindictive rather than policy-driven posture.
Even ceremonial or cultural references—such as honoring workers or celebrating American manufacturing—were undermined by offhand, offensive, or absurd comments (e.g., suggesting someone might get discovered for a movie but “not by Harvey Weinstein,” or making quips about Hollywood while surrounded by construction workers). The tone oscillated between mock seriousness and absurdity, ending in self-aggrandizing flourishes about his G7 performance and his supposed role in preventing nuclear war between India and Pakistan—claims wholly uncorroborated and likely exaggerated.
Ultimately, this speech was a disorganized, performative venting session dressed as a patriotic photo-op. It failed to show even basic rhetorical discipline or policy coherence, reducing both the office of the presidency and the symbolism of the American flag to props in a loosely connected string of personal grievances and economic braggadocio. What should have been a solemn or celebratory moment became yet another troubling window into the former president’s erratic public messaging.
An unscripted Oval Office appearance by President Trump—framed as a ceremonial moment to welcome the Juventus soccer team—rapidly devolved into yet another rambling, disjointed press exchange, blurring sports diplomacy, domestic political grievances, and serious foreign policy matters into a chaotic monologue. What began as a congratulatory acknowledgment of international soccer figures and a plug for a sold-out match in Washington, D.C., quickly transitioned into a barrage of tangential commentary. Trump inserted speculative praise of foreign figures like John Elkann and FIFA President Gianni Infantino, punctuated with awkward jabs about gender in sports, and then veered into grave topics such as nuclear proliferation in Iran, U.S. troop deployments, and the Israeli conflict—all without clear transitions, coherence, or factual rigor.
His responses to serious national security questions lacked clarity. Instead, they relied on self-congratulatory anecdotes, vague insinuations about secret plans, and ad hominem attacks on critics, such as Tucker Carlson and Emmanuel Macron. Rather than offering substantive updates on evacuation efforts from Israel or articulating a concrete Iran policy, Trump spoke in riddles about “having a plan” and deferred to vague war room meetings and spontaneous decision-making. He also dismissed concerns about civilian retaliation and minimized global fears of escalation with cavalier statements like, “War is very bad,” followed by contradictory suggestions that it might be necessary. Such flip-flopping not only undermines confidence in his leadership but also trivializes complex international crises.
On domestic matters, Trump fumbled through a response to Josh Hawley’s $15 minimum wage proposal—expressing surprise rather than a considered policy stance—and offered performative praise for border security success statistics without context or acknowledgment of the long-term legal or humanitarian implications. His praise for Turning Point USA and Charlie Kirk, while framed as a compliment, only served to highlight his prioritization of friendly media over press accountability. The segment overall reflects Trump’s ongoing preference for ad-libbed spectacle over diplomatic discipline, blending political score-settling with national security posturing in a way that trivializes both. Rather than elevating the Juventus visit as an example of soft power and cross-cultural celebration, the event was reduced to another Trumpian episode of improvisational dominance, riddled with false starts, contradictions, and personal glorification.
Donald Trump's handling of the potential U.S. military strike against Iran reflects a volatile mix of improvisation, performative bravado, and political calculus rather than a coherent foreign policy strategy. His apparent approval of attack plans, juxtaposed with a refusal to make a final decision, highlights a pattern of using military escalation as both a political pressure tactic and a media spectacle. The claim that he prefers to make decisions "one second before it’s due" underscores a troubling reliance on impulsive judgment in matters of war, where deliberation and consistency are critical.
Trump’s demand for Iran’s “unconditional surrender” through a social media post, then flippantly explaining it as “I've had it... I give up”—reveals not only a lack of diplomatic seriousness but a dangerously flippant attitude toward high-stakes nuclear diplomacy. Moreover, the suggestion that Iran “would use” a nuclear weapon while “others won’t” is offered without evidence, but used to justify potential preemptive strikes. This unsubstantiated rationale may appeal to his base, but it lacks the rigor and credibility expected of a commander-in-chief navigating international conflict.
Trump’s consideration of public reaction—particularly from the MAGA base and Vice President JD Vance—before committing to military action reflects a troubling prioritization of domestic political optics over global strategic consequences. The attempt to frame himself as both a reluctant warrior and a decisive protector of American security only adds to the incoherence of his messaging. Meanwhile, the disclosure that military assets such as U.S. bases are vulnerable raises real concerns about whether the administration is prepared for the inevitable retaliation that could follow such a strike.
Trump’s approach to Iran appears less rooted in strategy and more in spectacle, leveraging the threat of war for political advantage while undermining diplomatic norms and global stability.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to uphold state bans on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, including Tennessee's law restricting puberty blockers and hormone therapy. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the conservative majority, applied the lowest level of legal scrutiny—rational basis—and concluded the law does not violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. He argued that such policy decisions are best left to legislatures, not the courts.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and partially by Elena Kagan, criticized the ruling for failing to protect a vulnerable minority. Sotomayor argued the law discriminates based on sex and transgender status and therefore warrants heightened judicial scrutiny. She likened the court’s deference to past failures to strike down discriminatory laws, including bans on interracial marriage.
LGBTQ+ advocates denounced the decision, warning it leaves trans youth in many states without access to essential care. The ruling did not address related legal battles over transgender military service, passport gender markers, and school sports participation. Future challenges, including possible bans on adult gender-affirming care, may soon come before the Court.
Starting July 17, 2025, the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline will eliminate its specialized “Press 3” services for LGBTQ+ youth, according to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). This service, launched in 2022, has routed nearly 1.3 million contacts to counselors trained to assist LGBTQ+ individuals under the age of 25. SAMHSA stated the program was a pilot funded through congressional allocations, which are now fully spent. The move coincides with the Trump administration's proposed 2026 budget, which eliminates funding for the LGBTQ+ subnetwork.
Critics, including The Trevor Project and Senator Tammy Baldwin, denounced the decision as harmful and regressive, particularly given the high suicide risk among LGBTQ+ youth. Baldwin called it a cruel reversal of bipartisan efforts that established the service. She vowed to continue fighting for its reinstatement. The Biden administration had previously invested over $1.5 billion into the 988 program, including targeted access for vulnerable communities. The Trump administration's rollback, especially during Pride Month, has sparked strong backlash from mental health advocates and Democratic lawmakers.
The Trump administration has resumed student visa appointments but with significantly stricter social media and online vetting procedures aimed at identifying applicants who may hold hostile views toward the U.S. culture, government, or founding principles. According to a June 18 State Department cable sent by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, consular officers are now required to thoroughly investigate all student and exchange visitor visa applicants, including reviewing their full online presence and social media activity. Officers may ask applicants to make their accounts public and treat limited access as suspicious.
The new directive follows an earlier suspension of visa scheduling on May 27, pending the expansion of vetting measures. Applicants with a history of political activism, especially involving violence or anti-U.S. sentiment, may be deemed ineligible. Specific examples cited include support for Hamas or criticism of U.S. allies like Israel. The administration has already revoked visas for many foreign nationals based on such criteria.
Though appointments will resume, embassies are advised to reduce the number of interviews due to the increased workload. Priority will be given to certain categories, such as foreign physicians in exchange programs and students attending universities with fewer international enrollees. Harvard University, which has a high percentage of foreign students, is implicitly targeted. The new vetting protocols are to be implemented within five business days. Critics argue these measures infringe on free speech rights protected by the First Amendment.
A federal judge in Massachusetts indicated he will allow a lawsuit by 17 states and Washington, D.C., to proceed against the Trump administration over its executive order halting wind energy permitting. The coalition, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, argues that the order unlawfully blocks wind project approvals, undermining economic, environmental, and public health goals. While Judge William G. Young plans to dismiss claims against Trump and other cabinet officials, he will let the case proceed against Interior Secretary Doug Burgum under the Administrative Procedure Act. He agreed that the states have standing but questioned the court’s ability to remedy the situation, noting the president appears committed to fossil fuel energy. The Justice Department argued the permitting pause is temporary and under review, while the states countered that it is indefinite and already harming key projects like Massachusetts’ SouthCoast wind. The judge’s final ruling will come in a formal written opinion.